LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 26 April 2004)

§ Lord Rooker
rose to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof: 41C Page 31, line 26, at end insert—

"(4A) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (2) the applicant must prepare an economic impact report which must—

(a) be in such form and contain such matter as is prescribed by development order;

(b) be submitted to the Secretary of State in accordance with such provision as is so prescribed.

600
(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) the Secretary of State may, by development order, prescribe such requirements as to publicity and notice as he thinks appropriate."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof.
The Government initially resisted the tabled amendment on the basis that the amendments were not required in the Bill. In dealing with amendments on economic impact and major infrastructure projects, the resistance was not because the Government were against the amendment in principle. I hope that I made that clear at the time.
The first subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, required an economic impact report to be completed in relation to an application that has been designated as a major infrastructure project by the Secretary of State.
The Government have always been clear that they would expect the promoter of a development of the type which the Secretary of State is likely to declare a major infrastructure project, that is, of national or regional importance, to engage with all parties concerned at as early a stage as possible. It is expected that some form of economic impact assessment or report will have been completed in preparation for the application in much the same way that it is expected that an environmental impact assessment or statement will have been prepared. It will be well in advance of the stage at which the amendment would envisage this happening.
It is only at the application stage that the Secretary of State will be able to declare that he thinks the application is of national or regional importance and should therefore be called in rather than left to the local planning authority to deal with. However, as the work assessing the economic impacts of the proposed development should already have been undertaken at the point at which the Secretary of State makes his decision as to whether the application should be called in, there is no reason why the requirement for an economic impact report cannot be included in the Bill.
The alternative amendment which has been tabled provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form and content of the report. He can also prescribe how and when the report is to be submitted to him, and the publicity requirements. The intention will be to avoid dispute over what constitutes an economic impact report, to ensure that it is submitted in good time in order to avoid lengthening the inquiry process, and to ensure that so far as possible the public are informed of its content.
The second subsection of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would require any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a White Paper to be considered by an inspector who could question whether the specific development was necessary. I have to say that the Government continue to resist this proposal because there is no need for a legislative 601 provision in order to enable an inspector to be able to question whether a specific development is necessary, which is what I think is at the heart of the amendment. I accept that what was being argued was along the lines of, "You are more or less taking away from the inquiry whether we should have this in the first place and saying simply, 'We are going to have it. What are the nuts and bolts aspects?'". We were not quite putting it like that.
Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government's stated position has been that where there is a national policy statement White Paper, it will help to reduce the argument at a planning inquiry—not obliterate or eliminate it—about the need for a specific development on a particular site. It has never been the Government's intention to rule out the possibility that the inspector will spend some time looking at need, but this will be done in the context of what is said about need in the national policy statement.
The Government's position is not contrary to the principle behind the second subsection of the amendment, but legislative provision to enable an inspector to consider the issue of need is unnecessary. I hope that I have made it clear: the issue of need will be open for question by the inspector, but the point about the national policy statement in a White Paper is that it could reduce the scale of the argument. Obviously we have based much of this on what happened over Terminal 5.
Although the noble Lord may wish to do so, I do not want to get bogged down in the issue of the recent aviation White Paper. As I said in the debate on Report, the White Paper sets out the Government's strategic framework for airport capacity over the next 30 years. It does not authorise or preclude any particular development, but sets out a policy framework against which the relevant public bodies can plan ahead. That is the point of it.
I hope that what I have been able to say has been much more precise than what I was able to say when we considered the earlier amendments, and that it will find favour not only with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, as the original proposer, but with the whole House.
Moved that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)

§ Lord Hanningfield
rose to move Amendment No. 41D, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof, leave out "41C" and insert "41E".
41E Page 31, line 14, at end insert — ()Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development. 602 The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for those comments, and I thank him and the Government for tabling their amendment. At least we have won half of our amendment, for which I am grateful. It means that during the course of our discussion of the Bill in this House, the Government have listened to the argument in this area, one that is obviously contentious, in particular in my own county because of the development of Stansted airport. Therefore, as I have said, I thank the Government for tabling their amendment, which we shall accept.
However, I should like to speak to my new amendment, Amendment No. 41E. While I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the inquiry process, I think that certain areas need clarification. We all accept that no one wants to see inquiries of the kind conducted for Terminal 5 at Heathrow. It went on for years and caused a lot of uncertainty and disruption. Waiting such a long time for a decision does not help either local communities or airports.
One also accepts that governments of all kinds have policies and that, once stated, those policies are debated and conclusions reached. But what is paramount is the need for people to have confidence in a local inquiry. They must be able to put all the issues relating to the development at such an inquiry. We have discussed many times during the course of this Bill the fact that, unfortunately, despite some modifications, there is going to be only one planner in this country. That will be the Deputy Prime Minister. If he decides that there is to be an airport, then that is it. One wants to be confident enough in the system to be certain that local people will have the right to question both the need for, say, the new, runway at Stansted, and the actual positioning of it. I say that because such concerns deeply affect the surrounding communities. Aircraft noise is only one consideration. One wants to make certain that inquiries fulfil the legitimate democratic process. People, whether local or industry representatives, must feel that they can go to a local inquiry and put their arguments forward in the knowledge that those points will be properly considered.
I would still like to see such a provision on the face of the Bill. It would give a reassurance that local democracy does still exist. We need to know that local councils can question the need for, the siting of and so forth of a runway or any other major project affecting thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people's homes and livelihoods. These truly big issues must be dealt with openly—even after the Government have set out their policy.
I appreciate what the Minister has had to say and I am glad that it is on the record. However, perhaps he will be able to say a little more about the democratic nature of inquiries and the ability of the inspector to have a free hand in looking at all the issues relating to a major infrastructure project.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 603 numbered 41A, but do propose Amendment No. 41C in lieu thereof, leave out "41C" and insert "41E".— (Lord Hanningfield.)

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I do not have anything further to say. Although I do not want to sound nitpicking, I shall refer again to my original notes and cross-check those against the wording of Amendment No. 41E, to which the noble Lord has just been speaking. We are not talking about the same thing. Amendment No. 41E deals with a, planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper". I am no expert on the aviation White Paper, but I can only repeat what I have said. The recent White Paper sets out the development of airport capacity in the UK for the next 30 years. It does not authorise or preclude any particular development. Moreover, I have already made the point that even if it was site-specific, the inspector would still be able to question the need, which is the purpose behind Amendment No. 41E.

§ Lord Hanningfield
My Lords, I do not want to debate that White Paper today but it gives a specific site and specific positioning for a second runway at Stansted airport. There is a specific site named in the White Paper.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I accept that. I am not arguing what the pronouncement was—the answer to the question for which everyone had waited for three years was "Stansted"—but the White Paper did not authorise Stansted. Let me make it absolutely clear that the White Paper did not authorise the expansion of Stansted. People think, "The Government have published a White Paper—boom—this is going to happen", but a process has to be followed.
As I have said, the inspector will be able to question the need. Under the new procedure in the Bill, we hope to be able to reduce the amount of time spent on the need argument before one gets down to the nuts and bolts. That is what we are seeking to do and it would not be fruitful for me to debate the pros and cons of the aviation White Paper. I am not seeking to nit-pick the amendment. I am making the point that the White Paper does not authorise the expansion at Stansted.

§ Lord Hanningfield
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall not pursue the amendment further today. What he has said is on the record and one hopes that any potential future inquiries into large projects will proceed exactly as he has said they will. We shall be watching what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.