Kramer, Rogerson and Featherstone quiz Blears on the Planning Bill

12.51.18pm BST (GMT +0100) Thu 26th Jun 2008

' . . a large number of my constituents have become concerned that it is not only the expansion of runways at Heathrow that will be covered by the new procedure, but changes to the pattern of operations and the ending of runway alternation . . '

[Jun 25] Susan Kramer (Cabinet Office; Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): . . As the details of the Bill have emerged, a large number of my constituents have become concerned that it is not only the expansion of runways at Heathrow that will be covered by the new procedure, but changes to the pattern of operations and the ending of runway alternation. Can the right hon. Lady give us some clarification on that issue, because it is causing a great deal of disquiet?

Hazel Blears (Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government; Salford, Labour): As I said to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the purpose of the Bill is to ensure a single consent regime for major infrastructure projects. We will come to other powers of the independent planning commission when we discuss some of the amendments. We want to ensure that in the field of aviation, for example, there is a clear exposition of national policy in the national policy statement. Individual applications will then be dealt with by the independent planning commission. Clearly, it is a matter of assessing the national need and then looking at the detail of individual applications. If the hon. Lady has concerns on a specific issue, I shall write to her with further details, and I am more than happy to do so.

. . Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage); North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat): I am interested in the Secretary of State's terminology in respect of processing applications. I am concerned that it tends to imply that we want things decided without communities having the chance to oppose them effectively, that the Government see such projects as things that must happen and that the IPC will therefore be given a fairly firm steer that it needs to get through quickly. I am talking not so much about what she said about a deliberative process; rather, the important thing is not just that decisions are taken quickly and that the process is effective, which I accept, but that they are right.

Hazel Blears (Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government; Salford, Labour): I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement about that. Speed and efficiency are important, but they are not the only considerations. Decisions must be properly explored; they need to be effective and to command support because they have been subjected to testing and a proper rigorous examination. I entirely agree, but there is no getting away from the fact that over the next 10 or 20 years, we are going to have to renew a third of our energy-generating capacity in this country and we will need a diverse energy policy that seeks to get the benefits from more than just gas, where we are now becoming a net importer rather than exporter. The people of this country do not want to have to rely simply on importing gas from a range of other countries, which would then be in a very powerful position over us. That is why they want a diverse energy policy. The people of this country also recognise that in terms of aviation, any decisions are controversial, but they also recognise that we need aviation and that we need the employment that goes with the development of our airport capacity. These are big and difficult decisions, but there is no shying away from them.

I have to say that what sometimes worries me is that people are prepared to will the ends-we all say we want better decisions, more flexibility, speed and efficiency-but they are not prepared to will the means to get there. That requires being prepared to take some tough decisions in the interests of our country's long-term prosperity. That is the real political test for the Opposition parties, and at the moment, they are in danger of failing it.

. . Lynne Featherstone (Youth and Equality Spokesperson, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat): I thank the Secretary of State, who is being very generous. Are there any criteria or guidelines as to how the new consultation rights can make a difference to a proposal? Many consultations make no difference, and I am worried that people will feel that this is just a tick-box exercise, and not something that can deliver a different outcome.

Hazel Blears (Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government; Salford, Labour): The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Bill contains provisions ensuring that the IPC must give due weight to the various representations that are made. Clearly, experience from other forms of decision making shows that phrases such as "giving due weight" or "having regard to" have specific connotations. There is quite a body of evidence as to the weight that should be given to the various criteria, so we should be able to deal with the problem that she has identified. The consultation process is not new; if people want to mount a challenge because their views have not been taken into account, they will know the sort of criteria and weighting that should have been applied. As I said, we can issue guidance about the kind of consultation that ought to take place, and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be too concerned.