---

Planning Bill

I am saying that I am sure that their lordships' House would be sufficiently responsible to understand the Government's will, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. The amendments clearly show our objections in principle to the measure. I do not want to take up too much more time because we are running short of it and several other hon. Members wish to comment. We are pleased that the Government have acceded to our request about reviewing statements. The Minister asked me why I was unhappy about amendments Nos. 53 to 56. The original Bill mentioned ““community involvement””, but the amendments delete that reference. If one factor is key to where our planning system currently goes wrong, it is that the community does not feel involved. The phrase ““community involvement”” is essentially replaced by, ““There will be guidance.”” The guidance may well include community involvement, but it is not as explicit as it was in the original measure. If the Minister cares to reassure me, even briefly, I will be happy. We have argued about the right to be heard throughout the Bill's passage. We believe that it is still not strong enough. We welcome the legal advice to the commission to which the Government have agreed, but we would like it to be strengthened so that the right to be heard is guaranteed. I was interested in the answer that the hon. Member for Stroud received about Planning Aid because that was my interpretation—and, indeed, Planning Aid's interpretation—of what it can do. A difficulty remains with people's ability to get legal representation. I was interested in the Minister's comments on amendment No. 76, which deals with the Secretary of State's ability to call applications in. The Minister said that it covered only the review of the IPC. Again, I am prepared to be corrected—I am not a lawyer—but the amendment states:"““The Secretary of State may by order specify other circumstances in which section 108 is to apply in relation to an application for an order granting development consent.””" That suggests that the Secretary of State can call anything in. If that is the case, why establish an IPC? The power is too wide. I cannot believe that the drafting is so loose that my interpretation is correct, but I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification so that we all know where we stand. With apologies for taking so long, I commend our amendments to the Lords amendments.