Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Q I found the evidence you gave about the parliamentary process by which this might be streamlined really helpful, Mr Owen.

My question is for you both. One challenge for the planning system element of this Bill is that the local authority has a quasi-judicial role in administering planning law, and then statutory consultees and other organisations might be required to give consent for something, so the local authority has consented but Natural England, the Environment Agency or someone else needs to sign off. First, does the Bill strike the right balance in streamlining the different parts of that process, so that nationally significant infrastructure can make its way through quickly and efficiently?

Secondly, as well as judicial review, I am always conscious that a local authority may be subject to a maladministration complaint if it fails to take into account the legal obligations that Parliament has placed upon it. While the system may seem bureaucratic, the bottom line is that Parliament requires councils to go through that process when considering planning applications. Do you think there is a need to remove not so much the ability of others to challenge, but some of the requirements we place on local authorities, so that there are fewer loopholes and less complexity in administering that quasi-judicial role?

Sir John Armitt: That is a very complex question. I shall pass to my legal friend.

Robbie Owen: It is a complex question. On the balance and restricting this to national infrastructure, where the role of local authorities is among the role of many public bodies, as I touched on earlier, I do not think that we have yet got to a balance where the development consent order contains the principal consents and leaves subsidiary ones to be dealt with later.

I would like to see the Bill repeal section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 so that decisions can be taken on a case-by-case basis by the deciding Secretary of State on what they consider to be appropriate to put into the development consent order by way of other consents. I do not think it is appropriate for that decision to be subject to the veto of the relevant regulatory bodies, which it is at the moment. That is inappropriate.

If I understood the question on maladministration correctly, I am not sure that is a particularly relevant process for national infrastructure. My own experience is that it is quite ineffective generally. In terms of the role of local authorities in downstream supervision of the implementation of these projects, the answer is to make sure that the development consent order is very clear on the requirements and the conditions to the consent, which the local authority then needs to police and give approvals under. I think that is the way forward.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Robbie, you said you had no fundamental concerns democratically with the Bill. Could you give us a bit more on how you think the proposals will ensure continued meaningful engagement with affected communities and interested parties?

Robbie Owen: I would say two things. First, any right-minded applicant for a development consent order is clearly going to continue to consult formally and then engage informally with local communities, even with the changes that the Minister tabled yesterday. The role of the new guidance heralded by yesterday’s written statement is going to be critical in setting very clear guidelines in terms of what the Government think is appropriate by way of consultation and engagement. It is critical, though, that the guidance is not so specific that it almost undermines the effect of removing the provisions from the Act, as the amendments would do.

The second way in which the local community is involved is the public examination of proposals for up to six months—it normally is six months—once the application has been made and accepted. Compare that with the process for major planning applications, where communities may be given three minutes to address a planning committee: it is a much more inclusive process for local communities to take part in. Work is always ongoing to try to improve the usability and experience of the examination process, and hearings within that, and I support ongoing refinement there. But, fundamentally, those elements will completely remain—there is nothing in the Bill to remove them—and that is quite right.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q Do you feel that the Bill will deliver a sufficiently strategic approach to national infrastructure? Are there elements still missing that you feel would enable that?

Sir John Armitt: It is worth saying first that the Government have announced that they intend to publish a 10-year infrastructure strategy later this year. That will be the first since 2020. We are working with Government Departments on that at the moment, but it is vital that there is a clear, long-term infrastructure strategy. As Robbie said, the other key ingredients to implement that strategy are the national policy statements related to the different sectors, and the regular updating of them.

We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.

We have a live debate at the moment about whether we should all pay a different rate for our electricity according to whether we are close to the generating infrastructure or not. There are many ways these issues could be addressed, and they will not be simple. We should not kid ourselves that we are going to wave a magic wand and all of a sudden everything will change. We are a very democratic society; we are not like others who can steamroller these things through. That is the major challenge, and I argue that that challenge sits, in the first place, with the promoter.

The promoter has to get out there and be willing to be open and frank about what they see as the opportunities, broad advantages and local challenges, and demonstrate a willingness to enter into relevant consultation with local people. At the end of the day, there will be people who do not change their minds. Noting some of the remarks that Robbie made, you will always need the Minister to have the ability to step in when appropriate and make the appropriate decision, given the scale of the challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As we have a bit more time, there is a last question from Amanda Martin.

[Amanda Martin]

Q My question is a supplementary to that. John spoke about Scottish coastal towns. I am from Portsmouth and we have a ferry port that is working really hard to have clean power. Do you believe that unlocking some of the grid elements of power will help other coastal areas in England as well as in Scotland?

Dhara Vyas: Yes, because access to clean power should eventually result in lower bills. In making progress in this space, you ultimately unlock economic opportunities and growth and increase productivity. The dividends of this investment are felt right across the country.

[The Chair]

That brings our second panel to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witness

Marian Spain gave evidence.

Warm Home Discount

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Our reform of the energy market arrangements looks at all the aspects of our electricity market that are not working. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) is looking at that question and the Department is willing to work across the House to ensure we get to the right arrangements. As long as gas continues to drive the cost of energy, that will create a problem and have an impact on consumers. We are alive to that question and will report on that in due course.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I hear from many constituents who suffer with energy debt as a result of the previous Government’s failure to protect billpayers during the energy crisis. Many of them are petrified, unable to move or change providers. I welcome the proposed acceleration of a debt relief scheme, but can the Minister provide more details on how that will help families in my constituency of Portsmouth North?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We know that energy debt is a big problem. I have spoken to people across the country who are suffering with accumulated debt that they have no way of paying, with many having to forfeit energy as a consequence. Ofgem is consulting on a range of options, but at the heart of that is the principle that there needs to be a debt relief scheme. Whether we write off some of the energy debt that cannot be paid, or put in place payment plans, we want to ensure that those 1.8 million households have the opportunity to drive that debt in a way that means their energy will be sustainable. That is absolutely critical. It deals with the legacy of the energy crisis and the fact that many households have had to accumulate debt because they just could not pay £2,500. It is an important step and one that we are keen to support the regulator to deliver.

Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

Amanda Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I recognise that the right hon. Member has long-standing concerns about the role of China and its investment in our economy. He has been a great champion of raising concerns about forced labour, and he is right to do so. We have set up the solar taskforce, as I am sure he is aware, to look at whether there is forced labour in our solar supply chains. As I have said, a supply chain mission will be launched as part of the global clean power alliance. This is not something that one country can tackle by itself; we all need to be alert to the risks of slave labour. I know that an amendment was passed in the House of Lords last night that means the issue will come back to this Chamber soon, and I look forward to the discussion then.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that developing our economic and trading relationships with other nations is one lever of many that the Government are using to drive growth and investment, alongside planning reforms, public investment and a proper industrial strategy for the people not only of the UK, but my city? At the same time, our work across Departments must always have our nation’s security at its core.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are using a number of levers. The growth mission and the clean power mission work hand in hand to ensure that energy security and the decarbonisation of our power system contribute to growth in this country, and that means contributing to job creation and, in some cases, overseas investment. We have set up Great British Energy, and we have the national wealth fund and the clean industry bonus, all of which will help us achieve those objectives.