Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Dixon-Smith (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 October 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 56: 56: Clause 6, page 3, line 32, at end insert— ““( ) The Secretary of State shall consider continuously whether each national policy statement should be reviewed.”” The noble Lord said: Clause 6(1) states: "““The Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so””." One of the things that I regret is that as I have grown older I have become somewhat more cynical, which has led me to think about that provision. What happens if, when a review of the national policy statement is clearly appropriate, the Secretary of State none the less thinks that it is inappropriate? There could be all sorts of reasons for such a decision: the country could be heading towards an election, for example. The only certainty about the future is that we do not know. A policy statement will be made on the basis of the most up-to-date knowledge available at the time that it is promulgated; it will be consulted on and be as good as it can be made to be. I would be the first to acknowledge that. But in many of the fields that we are discussing in relation to national policy statements, things will change. I would not begin to predict the changes in transport, power generation or anything else—that is not the purpose of the amendment. However, we know that there will be change. We also know that that change will probably arise in an inconvenient way and at an inconvenient time. Amendment No. 56, therefore, is devised to make the review of a national policy statement a matter for the Secretary of State to keep under continuous review. I am not sure that I like the wording of my amendment any better than the wording of Clause 6(1). However, we need to think seriously about this, as the wording in the Bill is not wholly unsatisfactory. If my amendment is not wholly satisfactory, I apologise; if somebody can come up with a better form of wording, I should be very happy to see it in the Bill. But I do not think that the subsection should be left as it stands. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c627-8 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Disclosure of information Construction Civil proceedings Elizabeth line Airports Carbon capture and storage Health hazards Electricity generation Infrastructure Hazardous substances Freight Electric cables Heathrow Airport Planning permission Planning Ports Natural gas Nuclear power Offshore structures Power stations Railways Parliamentary scrutiny Railway network Public participation Passengers Parish and town councils National parks Pipelines Scotland Sewage Transport Storage Regional planning and development Wales Waste management Renewable energy Roads Wind power Rural areas Stansted Airport Leukaemia Water treatment Trans-European networks Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Nationally significant infrastructure projects Permitted development rights
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk