Proceeding contribution from Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Labour) 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
It would help me, if not other noble Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, could advise us on the following point. Clause 6 states that the Secretary of State, having reviewed a national policy statement, might ““amend””, ““withdraw”” or, "““leave the statement as it is””," and the need for public consultation in subsection (4) applies only if an amendment is proposed. If I have read this clause correctly, there is no obligation to have a public consultation on a review of a national policy statement. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that because, if the Secretary of State was under an obligation to review every five years or continuously, and if that meant that as part of the review process the full panoply of public consultation had to take place, you could be in a never-ending process of consultation. We are dealing with major infrastructure issues, and the last thing that the infrastructure industries would want is continued uncertainty about whether there is confidence to look ahead for years. We are dealing with areas that are looking for more confidence about long-term frameworks. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and to my noble friend the Minister is: when a review of the national policy statement is under way would that be accompanied by the whole process of consultation? If so, I for one would be loath to see in the Bill a review either continuously or every five years. That will mean that even before the five years was up a whole process of consultation would be going on. There will be no stability at all, because in the minds of the industries concerned, a review must mean that the policy can change. If the presumption is that policy can change every five years, decisions would have to be reviewed with all the necessary consultation. People who like to see change would argue strongly for it and Parliament would have to debate it. That could be a real problem. It would be helpful to me at least to see how these amendments tune in with the whole question of consultation and review.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 704 c631-2
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:48:11 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499700
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499700
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499700