Planning Bill

I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, and I may have given him the wrong impression with my words. What I meant was that the parliamentary process should tease out through comments by parliamentarians and by those who make representations to them whether this problem exists. My amendments start with Amendment No. 44, which seeks to amend Clause 5(5). We are told in paragraph (b) that the policy statement ““may””—I take that as a ““must”” type of may— "““set out criteria to be applied in deciding whether a location is suitable … for a specified description of development””." The preceding paragraph, paragraph (a), refers to development and uses the words ““amount, type and size””. I have simply repeated the formula in order to obtain what I hope will be the Minister’s confirmation that that is what is in fact intended. Amendment No. 46 amends paragraph (d), although I should have tabled a similar amendment to paragraph (b) as well. Paragraph (d) refers to where the policy statement is to, "““identify one or more locations as suitable (or potentially suitable)””." I find the words ““potentially suitable”” very difficult. I have been struggling with the concept of site-specific or location-specific, but how can a location ever be more than potentially suitable if the IPC is to have a job to do and a decision to make? I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is not a frivolous amendment. Amendment No. 47 is similar to Amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 48 would leave out the paragraph providing for the policy to identify particular statutory undertakers as the appropriate persons to carry out certain developments. I query whether it is appropriate for a policy statement to identify particular undertakers. This is crossing the line and is beyond policy. If we are going to stick to the hierarchy to which we are all signing up and we need to get the policy right, we should not be distracted by who should do it. You then start thinking whether they are in a position to do it, whether they will have the funds and what the relationship is between government and the particular undertaker. That is out of place at this point. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are essentially one amendment to paragraph (f), which states that the statement may, "““set out circumstances in which it is appropriate for a specified type of action to be taken to mitigate the impact of a specified description of development””." That is the wrong way round because it seems to accept that mitigation will sort out the problem. One should identify the problem first and then consider whether it is possible to mitigate the impact. My wording is an attempt to put things the other way about and to change the order.