Planning Bill

Although the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not move his amendment, I suspect that we are going to debate the issue in any case. On that basis, he may want to come into the debate. I understand that this is a very important matter. As we know, Clause 14 sets out the broad terms of types of project that would be nationally significant infrastructure projects for the purpose of the Bill. The detailed threshold for each type of project is then spelt out in subsequent clauses, Clauses15 to 29. The Government’s view is that while it is very important to set these out in the Bill as they are, there also needs to be some flexibility. That is why we think it right that the Secretary of State should have an ability to make secondary legislation at a later date to respond to the changes in technology and national need that might arise in future. We have already had a discussion on one type of technology that might need to be embraced in the Bill. We cannot foresee the future and the speed of technological development, but clearly one must hope that, particularly in view of the huge challenges that we face in relation to energy security and climate change, new technologies will come along to help us to meet those challenges. It is very important that this Bill allows us to meet those needs, albeit with appropriate safeguards. I understand why the noble Baroness who has moved her amendment and the noble Lord who has not moved his have legitimate concerns in this area. The noble Lord has already referred to yesterday’s debate on counterterrorism. Although this is of a different order, we are debating some of the same questions about how far it is right for a parliamentary Bill to seek to anticipate future changes with the necessary safeguards and where there should be a boundary. We think that we have got the balance just about right here. The noble Baroness’s amendments would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to add new types of infrastructure to the types that can be defined as nationally significant under the Bill or to remove types of infrastructure where the Secretary of State subsequently decides that they should not be designated as being NSIPs. It also introduces a new statutory duty for the Secretary of State to keep under review certain thresholds for NSIPs specified in the Bill and limits the Secretary of State’s power to amend thresholds, so that it can be exercised only in relation to those thresholds that are subject to this statutory duty of review. The new system will deal with nationally significant infrastructure projects in the fields of energy, transport, waste, water and waste-water, and clearly what we think of as being nationally significant in these areas may be subject to change. At the same time, we want the definition of an NSIP to cover only projects which really are of national significance. The obvious example in the energy sector is offshore renewable projects. Changing technologies may also mean that in future we have a national need for a new type of transport or energy infrastructure, and one which is not covered by the terms of the Bill as we read it today. We have already debated carbon capture and storage technology as being one potential candidate, depending on how the technology advances. That is why we think that the Secretary of State should have a power to alter these thresholds in future. The Committee can be assured that strong parliamentary safeguards remain in any such actions. Any set of regulations that alters the thresholds in Clause 14 would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that Members of this House would have the opportunity to deal with and if necessary vote on the contents of any revision. On the question of keeping thresholds under review, as long as the Secretary of State retains a general power to amend the NSIP thresholds, the provisions of administrative law will mean that he or she will be expected to keep these thresholds under review. It is interesting that in the other place the Lib Dem Front-Bench spokesman said in Committee: "““I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the Government are aware of the issues and that they intend to keep a watching eye on the thresholds and any effect that they have on applications””.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning Bill Committee, 22/1/08; col. 334.]" This is really a question of whether we have got the balance right. Is there enough detail in relation to the thresholds that we are proposing in the fields set out? We believe that there is. Is there enough flexibility to allow for changes in developments in technology? We think that there is. Is there sufficient parliamentary safeguard? We think that there is through the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that noble Lords will accept that this is a genuine effort to get the balance right and ensure that we can deal effectively with future technologies that may have a lot to offer us, but with sufficient parliamentary oversight.