I take the noble Baroness’s point. In fact I think that everything I have said applies to ““potentially suitable””, for the very reason that I gave.
Perhaps I may move to the question of mission creep and Amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 53. Noble Lords argue that it is necessary to place these conditions in the Bill to prevent it extending its sphere of influence beyond the parameters set out in Clause 14. I understand why noble Lords are exercised about this. The provisions of the Bill are specifically drawn up in order to prevent this happening. Perhaps I may give some reassurance here. My fears are that Amendment No. 27 could constrain Ministers in ways that would not be helpful. I do not think noble Lords would want to do that.
The principal purpose of national policy statements is to provide a clear statement of national policy on particular nationally significant infrastructure which will be relevant to the IPC.
However, there may be occasions when the Secretary of State wishes to set out aspects of national policy in relation to the fields in question without designating them for the purposes of the Bill. For example, Ministers would decide to publish a general and wide-ranging statement of policy in relation to any of the infrastructure types covered by the Bill, setting out long-term strategic goals, but which was not intended to function as a decision-making tool. The amendment would remove that. The Secretary of State must retain the flexibility and authority to set out policy statements in future, as happens now, alongside the NPSs.
Ministers may also wish to set out policy in relation to an area of infrastructure covered by the Bill but aimed at decision-making below the threshold set out in the Bill, such as in certain planning policy statements. They would be directed at local planning authorities rather than the IPC. Amendment No. 27 would constrain Ministers from doing that, and foreclose on these important possibilities. Any such documents will obviously form part of the policy background that national policy statements must take into account. Indeed, the NPS would have to explain how it had taken those sorts of policy statements into account, and the full range of factors set out there.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 53 attempt to restrict the areas in which the Secretary of State can set out policy in an NPS to developments in the fields of energy, transport, water, waste water and waste. They clarify that national policy statements might be issued in relation to the categories of project set out in Clause 14. In fact, they would have no practical effect. NPSs will be designated under the proposals of the Bill for the purposes of the Bill. Although they will have the same status as other statements of national policy for the TCPA system generally, their principal purpose is in relation to an application for development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, as set out in Clause 14. Clause 14 makes it clear that any new projects could be added to this list only if they fell within those fields. I understand that Members of the Committee were seeking clarification, but—
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c105-6 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:23:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497096
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497096
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497096