My Lords, when we considered this amendment in Committee I indicated that the Government were taking a number of actions to expand and improve the one-stop-shop approach for nationally significant infrastructure consents. Overall, the responses to our recent consultation on proposals to expand and improve the one-stop-shop approach were positive. We are now taking forward a programme of work to deliver rapid implementation of these proposals. In response to the concerns of developers about the challenges of co-ordinating and aligning multiple consent application procedures for nationally significant infrastructure projects, we will be establishing a new consents service unit by April this year. We are also streamlining the list of prescribed consultees set out in legislation, reducing it by up to a third and streamlining the list of non-planning consents which sit outside the development consent process. Regulations implementing these changes have now been laid in Parliament. These changes are in addition to the five separate certificates and consents which are being removed from the Planning Act 2008 through clauses in this Bill.
We think that this approach provides applicants with additional support and service which they are looking for without watering down the protections that currently exist. While we recognise the appetite of some developers for all consents to be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate, other bodies have highlighted the important role played by bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England in ensuring that adequate environmental protections are delivered.
Nationally significant infrastructure projects are by nature complex. We currently consider that the relevant consenting bodies, which hold a wide range of expertise on granting, monitoring and enforcing the various consents that are normally required, are well placed to make a judgment on a case by case basis, having regard to the updated guidance that we have issued about whether their consents should be dealt with as part of the development consent order process. We do not consider that it would be efficient to change that position as part of the current reforms. However, we remain in listening mode; we will review the operation of the current reforms and consider any further improvements to the way multiple consent applications are dealt with as part of a full review of the major infrastructure planning regime in 2014.
The proposals now being taken forward for the one-stop shop will deliver a much more efficient process for developers of infrastructure projects under the Planning Act. Despite the points made by the noble Lord, the Government’s position remains unchanged and at this stage, the Government do not intend to amend or repeal Section 150 of the Planning Act 2008.
I now turn to Amendment 55. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasoning behind the amendment, which would provide for immediate commencement of the provisions in Clauses 21, 22 and 23. We have considered carefully the way in which the provisions covering the removal of certain consenting and certification requirements and the provisions on special parliamentary procedures should be introduced. We want to ensure the right balance is struck between the need to deliver infrastructure and the need to ensure that no one is prejudiced or treated unfairly by
the changes we are proposing to introduce. Principles of fairness must surely be a prime consideration in any situation where it is proposed to compulsorily acquire land or property.
Unfairness might occur with the introduction of Clauses 21, 22 and 23 if provisions are not made to prevent such unfairness. This is because there will always be a number of applications at different stages in the process leading through to a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008. Some applications will have been submitted before this Bill was even introduced to Parliament for consideration. Some applications will be in the examination phase now. In some cases, the examination process will be complete and recommendations will be in the process of being prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, or a Secretary of State will be considering those recommendations before reaching a decision.
7.45 pm
The effect of this amendment would be immediate commencement, on Royal Assent, to any development consent order made after commencement. That could mean that there were bodies making representations on the basis that provisions on special parliamentary procedure, or the consent procedures affected by these clauses, would apply to an application as currently set out in the 2008 Act, but then finding that significant changes had been made as a result of this Bill. Given this situation, we think it important that there are transitional provisions in place to prevent unfairness as a result of introducing these provisions. With that in mind, we are proposing to commence these provisions by commencement order. This will include provisions to cover transitional arrangements for projects already in the system.
For example, the removal of the certification and consenting procedures set out in Clause 21, and the removal of the need for a separate certification process under Clause 22, will only apply to applications made after commencement and not to existing applications. In respect of changes to the special parliamentary procedure set out in Clauses 22 and 23, the commencement order will make it clear that the new provisions will not apply to applications submitted before the Bill was introduced to Parliament, and will also not apply in the case of applications where the public examination is completed before commencement.
We believe—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also mentioned this—that our proposals on commencement should prevent unfairness in respect of projects that are already in the system. As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, the Planning Inspectorate has written to all interested parties where applications are going through the system so they are aware of what the Government are proposing on these matters. I know that some noble Lords—including the noble Lord himself—have expressed concern about existing applications still being subject to special parliamentary procedure as currently set out in the Planning Act and unable to benefit from our reforms. He mentioned certain cases, but it would not be appropriate for me to mention or discuss individual projects. However, I understand that there is currently just one infrastructure project where this will be the case.
On balance, we consider that we have achieved a proportionate balance between fairness to those parties who might have expected special parliamentary procedure provisions to operate as currently set out in the Planning Act and the need to reform the way in which those procedures work as quickly as reasonably possible. Given these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will be minded to withdraw his amendment.