Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Adonis(9 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which allows us to outline again the Government’s position on national infrastructure. I must admit that when he started talking about the Armitt review, I was concerned for a moment, as I was settling down, as to whether the word was Armitt or Ahmad. That threw me a bit—but we are clear which report we are talking about here.
We believe that the national infrastructure plan already delivers unparalleled levels of investment. The Government recognise—and the noble Lord acknowledged this—that infrastructure projects have been delivered on time and on budget. He referred to the Olympics. It is noteworthy that the person responsible for delivering the Olympics on time and on budget is the current Minister for Infrastructure in our Government, my noble friend Lord Deighton. I believe that all noble Lords will agree that he has great expertise in this area.
Of course the Government recognise the importance of the long term in looking at infrastructure investment. Investing in infrastructure is a central part of the Government’s long-term economic plan to build a stronger and more competitive economy. For this reason, the Government have introduced the national infrastructure plan, which has brought together our approach to investing in energy, transport, telecoms, water and waste networks into one place. This has brought a step change in delivering UK infrastructure. We are introducing an ambitious new energy strategy to incentivise additional electricity capacity for the UK and support low-carbon electricity generation. In road and rail networks, we are seeing new investment at rates not known for several decades. Our plan provides sound justification for infrastructure projects that have secured buy-in from a broad range of stakeholders.
We have set out long-term capital settlements to align with the national infrastructure plan. These commitments have led to new investment out to 2021, in sectors such as roads and flood defences, and long-term funding plans for projects such as High Speed 2. This has all helped to ensure stability and continuity of infrastructure investment in the decades to come.
I turn to the issue of the independent infrastructure body. The Government disagree with this amendment and have reservations about introducing an independent body without a clear understanding of the impacts of the change. Failure to understand this would create greater uncertainty and risk the successful delivery of UK infrastructure. We believe that resourcing requirements to support a commission have not been fully established or costed. Establishing a new authority for infrastructure would involve significant complexities and would distract from the business of providing the infrastructure that the country needs now and in the future.
It is essential that the Government focus on delivery. The central issue is to ensure that the UK has a robust plan to address the challenges facing our networks in the future. The Government have developed a strategy to meet current and future demand through the renewal of existing infrastructure and to grow a global economy with modern infrastructure networks. In doing this, we have sought to address climate change and energy security. This investment is vital for future economic growth. However, it is not clear how introducing a national infrastructure commission would address these pressing issues.
The Government already have a strong track record in major infrastructure delivery. While a national infrastructure commission is an untested and, as yet, unproven idea, the Government take delivering infrastructure extremely seriously. The latest infrastructure pipeline shows that £383 billion of investment is planned for infrastructure networks over the course of the next Parliament and beyond. The noble Lord mentioned specific transport projects. We have had 45 major road and local transport projects since 2010, and the start of construction on flagship projects, such as Northern Hub and the Mersey Gateway Bridge, as well as substantive progress on Crossrail, provides good examples. In addition, more than £45 million has been invested in electricity generation networks between 2010 and 2013 and contracts have already been signed under the electricity market reform, with a further allocation currently under way. The UK is rated as the most energy-secure country in the EU and is fourth in the world.
I believe that we are in a good place when it comes to infrastructure and investment in infrastructure for the current, medium and long term. With the reassurances I have provided, I hope that the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He offers me a tantalising prospect that, if we were to rename the Armitt report the Ahmad report, then he might be prepared to accept the amendment. I offer him that potential deal across the Dispatch Box, though Sir John Armitt might want some hybrid name attached to the report in consequence.
I am disappointed by the response of the noble Lord. In many other areas, such as fiscal and competition policy, we have independent bodies which advise Ministers. Looking at the history of this country over the last two generations, it is clear that we have had serious problems in the planning of our national infrastructure. This is not just in bringing objective evidence to bear on the debate, but in the establishment of cross-party consensus in areas of high priority. We believe that a commission of this kind could significantly contribute to the process.
The area I know well—transport—is a testimony to the problems of failure to address long-term infrastructure planning on an independent and consensual basis. Airports policy has been a yo-yo since the 1960s. There has been stop-start on Maplin, then at Heathrow, and it has taken 15 years to make decisions about increased airport capacity in the south-east of England. Electrification of the railways has been delayed for the best part of a generation because of the lack of any long-term plan. The noble Lord mentioned HS2 and I am glad that a cross-party consensus has been reached on it. However, it was only five years ago—a generation after most of continental Europe and large parts of Asia started to develop high-speed rail networks—that we even started to consider the potential for high-speed rail in this country because there was no medium and long-term planning.
The Minister mentioned roads and the roads programme. As many noble Lords with major road developments in their areas know, this is a classic case of stop-go. Every time there is a downturn, there is a massive slashing of projects, only for them to have to be revived again a few years later at significant additional expense because there is no agreed medium-term plan. In 2010, when the present Government came in, there were huge reductions in the roads programme for strategic roads, which have since had to be partly reinstated. A system of national infrastructure planning of the kind that we propose could only strengthen the bringing to bear of objective evidence, strengthen cross- party consensus and give a louder voice to capital spending and infrastructure projects within the government machine itself.
The noble Lord referred to the resourcing requirements of the commissioners, but they would of course be a fraction of the cost of the projects themselves and there are already significant staff who develop infrastructure in individual departments. This would enable them to be pulled together to operate more effectively with some clear central direction.
It is only a matter of time before a commission of this kind is established. As I said, in so many other areas of critical policy, the bringing to bear of expert advice reporting to Ministers and Parliament to provide a basis on which decisions can be taken has been a course that has been followed. I believe it will be followed in due course in the case of infrastructure. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention and the noble Lord for his amendment. I feel somewhat spiritually awakened by my noble friend’s final comment about walking on water. I hope I can provide clarity on why the Government are not in a position to accept the amendment at this time.
I shall start with our common ground. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that creating well designed, sustainable communities should be at the heart of any new development. In Amendment 86B, tabled by the noble Lord, two main objectives are proposed for a development corporation to be established for the purpose of creating a new town and for the physical laying-out of infrastructure and long-term sustainable development of the new town.
However, I do not think that prescribing the objects of a new town development corporation in detail would help to achieve that objective in a way that allowed for sufficient flexibility locally. There is much to be said for the simplicity of the current objective of new town development corporations, as indeed set out in statute: to secure the laying out and development of the new town.
The amendment proposes that sustainable development should be included in the objects of new town development corporations. Let me emphasise that the Government strongly support the principle of sustainable development. Indeed, that principle is central to the document National Planning Policy Framework, which provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice. We believe that creating an additional statutory definition of sustainable development could serve to reduce that very clarity.
I note that no new town development corporations have been created since 1970. However, I am clear that any future new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporations, such as the one the Government are proposing to establish at Ebbsfleet, should have a strong focus on securing sustainable development in a way that reflects local circumstances and needs. I look forward to Her Majesty’s Opposition supporting the creation of the new town at Ebbsfleet, as we seek to establish it in another Bill.
I hope that the clarity I have provided, with brevity, gives the noble Lord sufficient comfort to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting on record the Government’s commitment to sustainable development and high-quality design, which is of key importance.
If I may, I shall respond further to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The amendments were tabled on Monday, which was the day before yesterday, so there was certainly time for noble Lords to engage fully with the issues—and, indeed, for the noble Lord to have read the Armitt report, which was published some months ago. It is not a recent document, by any means.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
They say, “Once a Whip, always a Whip”. We are on Report, and no other interventions would be appropriate.
Lord Adonis
I was very willing to give way to the noble Lord, because I did mention him. I think that I had a right of reply to his points, given that he said there had been almost no notice of these amendments.
Amendment 86B was tabled by my noble friend Lord McKenzie in Committee—it is exactly the same amendment. The reason we regard it as so important that the law takes account of the issues specified in the amendment, that sustainable development should,
“contribute to the cultural and artistic development of the town … protect and enhance the natural and historic environment … promote high quality and inclusive design … ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable … and ensure that assets are managed in the long-term interest of the community”,
and so on, is precisely because of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised: our last experience of developing new towns in this country was not wholly happy. There have been many very positive elements to the new towns and most of them now function extremely well. However, in some cases the quality of the initial design was not high enough. The Minister said that no new town development corporations have been set up since 1970, but we are just about to begin the process of developing new towns and major urban extensions again. The Government have named Ebbsfleet as the first. It is very likely that others will follow, given the need at least to double the rate of national housebuilding. Therefore, it seems to us, and probably to most people in the House, that having a proper set of criteria for the development of new towns is timely. If it cannot be done in this Bill—and we do not intend to press this amendment today—it should be done before we embark on the next new era of garden city development. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have given away twice to the noble Lord. He has had plenty of opportunity to make his case.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, we are on Report. Only points of clarification should be sought, and I ask the House to respect the rules.
Lord Adonis
I am happy to give way to the noble Lord because every time he intervenes he maximises the vote in favour of the amendment.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Adonis
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am afraid that this is a somewhat technical amendment, but I will do my best to explain what is intended in concise and accessible language. Clause 20 is about enabling projects that were authorised under the various major infrastructure consent regimes that preceded the Planning Act 2008 to go ahead without also requiring authorisation under the Planning Act in the form of a development consent order. It deals with cases where a developer’s plans for a project have changed and they need to have the original consent varied or replaced to take account of that change. We want to make it absolutely clear that in such a case, the variation or replacement of the original consent—for example, planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—is all that is needed. The developer will not need to start again from scratch and apply for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 if they already have a validly varied or replaced consent under the relevant pre-Planning Act regime.
The reason for making the amendment is that new Section 237A, which Clause 20 would insert into the Planning Act, would still potentially leave projects authorised under pre-Planning Act legislation having to apply in some cases for a development consent order under the Planning Act. For example, the new section would not remove the need for a development consent order in a situation where a project had been built and it was necessary to make changes to the conditions of its original planning permission relating to operational matters. This seems wrong. As an additional benefit, the amendment also simplifies the drafting of new Section 237A of the Planning Act. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Minister’s explanation of the amendment was entirely persuasive, and we are content.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I begin by echoing the tribute made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to Sir Michael Pitt, who is doing an excellent job of public service as chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate—and did so in his previous work at the Infrastructure Planning Commission. However, in the present economic downturn where businesses are under so much pressure, the Planning Inspectorate, like other parts of the public service, should seek to keep its costs and charges down to an absolute minimum. That is the first important issue raised in the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
The key issue in the first amendment in this group is to do with the basis on which PINS calculates fees for the processing of development consent order applications. The fees are set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010, which provides that PINS may charge for each day on which the examining authority examines the application in the period beginning with the start date and ending with the completion date of the examination. This provision has given rise to uncertainty as to whether PINS is entitled to charge a fee only for the actual days worked on the development consent order by the examining authority or for each day of the examination period, irrespective of the days on which the examining authority may have worked on the application.
PINS has adopted the second of these interpretations, which is hardly surprising because that gives it a larger income and of course it is under great pressure from the Government to maximise its private income so that it is less dependent on the department. However, it seems that any reasonable interpretation of the fees that should be paid by promoters would lead one to conclude that they should pay only for the actual days worked on the development consent order by the examining authority. This is not a minor matter. I talked about the issue with the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which told me that for larger projects fees run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and that even for smaller projects, were the interpretation that fees would be payable only for actual days worked by the examining authority rather than the entire examining authority period, savings to developers of £20,000 or £30,000 might not be uncommon.
My understanding is that the Government are sympathetic to the case that has been made in respect of fees. When the Bill was before the Commons, the Planning Minister said:
“Although I would not want to fetter the Planning Inspectorate’s already constrained ability to charge fees for the valuable work that it does, I nevertheless take on board the concern about how such fees are charged. I have already had conversations with the Planning Inspectorate about how exactly it measures time and whether that time measurement relates to work done rather than just the clock ticking, and I will be sure to keep on the case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 4/12/12; col. 437.]
How far has the planning Minister been on the case since the matter was raised in the Commons? Can the Minister here today give any further comfort to developers that the fees charged to them by the Planning Inspectorate will be done on what appears to be a defensible basis, namely the days actually spent by planning inspectors in working on the DCO applications rather than, as I say, the entire period that they are before the examining authority?
The second issue raised by my noble friend is about consents that cannot be disapplied by a development consent order without the consent of the relevant body. My noble friend cited Sir Michael Pitt who said recently that 40% of the required consents were outside the development consent order regime, even though—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said—the Planning Act regime was intended to be a unified authorisation process and therefore a one-stop shop for the construction of major infrastructure. The issue here is whether to do as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wish—that is, remove the requirement to obtain the consent of bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England in respect of their permissions and replace that simply with a right for them to be consulted—would lose essential safeguards for essential interests. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that issue because it seems to be the fundamental point at stake. My understanding is that a new consent service is being set up by the Planning Inspectorate which should help in this respect and that recently reissued guidance to promoters about development consent orders sets out a stronger onus on consenting bodies to consider including consents in the development consent order regime. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he thinks that is likely to be effective in meeting the concerns raised by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
The third key issue raised by these amendments relates to the pre-application programme management system and the oversight by PINS. The proposition is that the PINS examining inspectors should perform a programme management or case oversight role, probably holding public hearings with the key parties to check on progress made and the next steps.
I know that PINS already does good work at the pre-application stage to help promoters. However, I simply report to the House that the CBI, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the National Infrastructure Planning Association all report that the support given by PINS is not sufficient at the pre-application stage. They cite a whole string of cases, with which I will not take the time of the House now, which appear to substantiate that point. Providing a greater degree of oversight by PINS could help to ensure greater success for the DCO regime.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns raised by the CBI and others in this respect because, if this is a blockage, it is completely within the control of the Government, since, of course, the Planning Inspectorate is a government agency.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for tabling these amendments. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, apologised for the amount of detail as regards these amendments. I join him in that apology: I apologise in advance for the length of my response. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who had the benefit of riding tandem, while I have benefited greatly from riding tandem on this Bill with the noble Baroness, on this occasion I seek the Committee’s indulgence because my response to these amendments is very much a solo cycle. I also join my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in paying tribute to the work of Sir Michael Pitt in this respect.
As has been said, the amendments address a number of important issues in relation to reform of the major infrastructure planning regime. The importance of this was well expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. For the purposes of the Committee, I will address each amendment in turn. I recognise the intentions behind Amendment 72, which addresses the “one stop” element for major infrastructures. This amendment would mean that the Planning Inspectorate was likely to be required to deal with a much wider range of issues than it current deals with—issues which require detailed technical or specialist knowledge or relate to sensitive issues such as nuclear safety.
At present this expertise is held by a small number of departments and government agencies. It perhaps would be wasteful to replicate this wide range of expertise within the Planning Inspectorate, particularly on issues as sensitive and highly technical as, for example, nuclear safety. In addition, many of these consents require ongoing compliance activities and periodic review based on the results of the compliance work, and it would be undesirable to separate the permitting and compliance activities into different organisations.
That said, the Government certainly are sensitive to concerns about the challenge for developers, as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of effectively co-ordinating various application processes for a range of consents across a range of departments and government agencies, and are taking forward a range of actions to address this concern. Clause 21 and parts of Clause 22 remove the need for the five separate certificates or consents currently required and allow them to be dealt with under the single development consent order, a change which has been widely and strongly welcomed.
I am pleased to report that we have also recently consulted on proposals to establish new arrangements to improve co-ordination and communication between the Planning Inspectorate, applicants and consenting bodies. The proposals are intended to make the consents process more efficient, while retaining the technical and legal expertise in consenting bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.
We think that this approach provides developers with the additional support and service that they are looking for without, most importantly, watering down the protections which currently exist. While we recognise the appetite from some developers for the Government to let all consents be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate alone, other bodies have highlighted the important role that bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England play in ensuring that adequate environmental protections are delivered.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also highlighted the recently updated guidance on pre-application. I welcome his positive comments in this regard, which, of course, make it clear that non-planning consents can be included within the development consent and that the bodies normally responsible for granting these consents should make every effort to facilitate this. They should only object to the inclusion of such a non-planning consent with good reason and after careful consideration of reasonable alternatives.
I turn to Amendment 75ZAA, which addresses four distinct and important issues in relation to the operation of the nationally significant infrastructure regime. I will seek to address each of the four issues raised in turn and hope that my comments will provide noble Lords with some reassurance.
I turn first to the issue of fees—this was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—addressed by proposed new subsection (1) of Amendment 75ZAA. This amendment would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to set appropriate fees for applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Planning Inspectorate’s fees are currently set out in regulations, which include provision for day-rate charges that depend on the make-up of the examining authority. There is a smaller charge for cases where a single inspector is the examining authority and larger charges for panels of inspectors. These fees are intended to cover the work of the Planning Inspectorate, which supports the examination, including staff working in case management, case administration, environmental services, legal services and other relevant costs of the inspectorate, including those incurred during the recommendation stage, for which no separate fee is charged. This amendment would narrow the ability of the Secretary of State to set appropriate fees to reflect the costs of the application. This would, in effect, mean that the taxpayer would have to further subsidise the service that the Planning Inspectorate provides for nationally significant infrastructure projects. I strongly support the “user pays” principle in relation to major infrastructure fees and see it as entirely appropriate that developers of nationally significant infrastructure pay a reasonable fee for their planning applications. I would not want to curtail the ability to charge reasonable fees.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed to the comments of my honourable friend the Planning Minister in the other place—specifically on the issue of fees. The Government recognise that some developers are questioning the current wording of the infrastructure fees regulations. The noble Lord asked whether the Planning Minister was on the case; knowing the Planning Minister as I do, I know that he is definitely on the case, has opened the case, and has investigated it fully. I can therefore update the noble Lord with the news that the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument later in the spring to make this position absolutely clear and remove any possible doubt.
Lord Adonis
It is not entirely clear to me what “this position” meant in what the noble Lord just said. What does it mean? Is it that the charges will now only be in respect of actual days devoted to the examination of the cases?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I mentioned earlier, we have already said that there are specific fees which are charged for specific projects, so if a single inspectorate is being asked to look at that, that will be clear in the fee structure. Similarly, if there is a bigger application where a range of inspectors are involved, that will also be transparent. I also highlighted the issue of the day rate, which I mentioned earlier in my speech. In effect, all we are doing is highlighting the issue of transparency, which was mentioned earlier. The statutory instrument will address that point: it will outline the Government’s policy clearly. Again, I refer the noble Lord to what I said earlier about day rates also being charged as part of this policy.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the marathon that he has run with such fortitude. I hope that I may return to the fees charged by PINS. Having reflected on what the noble Lord said, I think that he made a dramatic statement which did not contain a great policy shift. I understood the Minister to say that the order which will be prepared later this year will be transparent about the number of inspectors—I stress, the number of inspectors—who are engaged in examining a DCO application. I understand that there is not much difficulty in finding this out and that developers are well aware of the number of inspectors in respect of their application. The issue is not the number of inspectors, it is the number of days on which they are engaged on the application, which they are able to charge for. That is a distinctly different point. If the order simply requires transparency on the number of inspectors, there will be no effective change from the status quo. The essential issue is whether developers and applicants are being charged excessively for the work being undertaken by the inspectorate.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord again for his question. The content of the statutory instrument is currently being looked at, and I do not want to pre-empt the detail of it. I refer the noble Lord back to my earlier point: Planning Inspectorate fees are currently set out in regulations which include provision for day-rate charges which depend on the make up of the examining authority—that was the point I was making—but there is something within them specific to day rates. Current practice and policy are not expected to change. There have been concerns about clarity and transparency, and they will be addressed by the statutory instrument.
Lord Adonis
The longer the noble Lord speaks, the more opaque it becomes as to what the actual change will be, if, indeed there will be any change whatever in the statutory instrument he refers to. If it simply re-expresses the status quo, what is the purpose of producing it in the first place? Will there be a change of practice on the part of the Planning Inspectorate? The noble Lord’s briefing may not enable him to answer that question now, but perhaps he could write to noble Lords after Committee.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I can assure the noble Lord that there is a statutory instrument due in this respect. I take his point about greater clarity, but my understanding is that the current policy position is not expected to change. The current fees regulations include day-rate charges.
Lord Adonis
Will the noble Lord write to us, between Committee and Report, so that noble Lords properly understand what is being proposed and have the opportunity to work out whether we need to return to this matter on Report? Given the feeling in the Committee, we may well return to this matter unless there is some movement.