Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors. In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State. Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State. Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council. By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.” The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation. I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees. This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage. There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project. Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community. It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects. Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said: “Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”. He continued: “developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[ Official Report , 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.] He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially. In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity. With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase. So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said: “On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”— that key word— “the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.” He said that they were, “developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.” —[ Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.] My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure. Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide. Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State “considers that the objection is serious enough”.

• 6 May 2025 · Cullompton and Wellington Stations · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights a practical example of how so many young people in Somerset, a place where sixth form colleges are literally few and far between, have difficulty accessing education because of the lack of public transport. This station project would enable thousands of people to reach Exeter college and the excellent Richard Huish college in my constituency, which is well known to be one of the best in the country. As I was saying, the station’s reopening will allow young people to reach jobs along the Bristol, Exeter and Cardiff corridor and customers to reach businesses. It is no wonder that a key strength of the case for the project is its benefit-cost ratio of 3.67. For the cost of around £42 million, £180 million of economic growth would go into the region, which I know the Government would want to see. Frankly, there is no other rail project in the south-west that is ready to go and could be built and completed in the next two years, as the project is so far advanced. In fact, had it not been for the review in July last year, the spades would be in the ground and the platforms under construction, because the contract was about to be let and the detailed design was almost finished. Our letter makes other equally telling points about the benefits of this station. Wellington is a growing town, which has had around 2,000 new homes in the last few years and has a projected 41% increase in housing numbers. That will mean about 6,000 more residents, and without the railway station, that is unlikely to be possible. Finally, we asked the Department for Transport to tell us what the recent benefit-cost ratios were—the figure for our project is 3.67. The answer we received was that the Department does not routinely share or publish benefit-cost ratios. We were asking not for routine publication, but specifically for the benefit-cost ratio information. I hope that the Minister will look at releasing that information.

• 6 May 2025 · Cullompton and Wellington Stations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I am grateful both to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for securing this debate, and to the Minister; I really must be more punctual in asking a Minister’s permission to speak in future, and I am very grateful for his permission to take part in this debate. A couple of weeks ago, a delegation of 30 to 40 local residents travelled the three or four hours from Somerset and Devon to Parliament to present a couple of letters to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, in Westminster Hall, one from Wellington town council and one signed by MPs throughout the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor. It is important to remember that the station’s reopening project, which combines two reopenings in one, will benefit the whole region, and my hon. Friend and I place on record our gratitude to the hon. Members for Exeter (Steve Race), for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who have all signed the letter with us and are fully supportive of the project. For example, the project will enable thousands of young people who have no access to public transport, in west Somerset and elsewhere, to travel to colleges in Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter. It will also enable thousands of customers to reach businesses.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on bringing us all together for this important debate to highlight the inequity of the system that built up under the previous Conservative Government and became more and more entrenched over those years. I am only sorry that more Conservative Members did not come to pay attention to this issue today. It is a huge factor in the wellbeing of children in all our constituencies, up and down the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has pointed out, Somerset is one of the f40 local authorities and therefore one of the worst funded local education authorities. A child educated here in Westminster receives £4,000 more funding as a pupil than a child in my Somerset constituency of Taunton and Wellington. At the same time, the demand for SEND in places like Somerset has risen enormously. There has been a 60% increase in placements between 2014-15 and 2023-24 and, as a result, provision in Somerset, as in a lot of other places, is frankly unacceptable. It is not good enough and it needs to change. Historical special educational needs funding, and the pattern for the national funding formula, is part of the problem. Spending should be based purely on current local need and not on historical need, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out in an important report. It says: “The use of historical spending patterns as a factor in the 2018 high-needs NFF also helped to cement geographical inequalities in high-needs funding that had arisen over time”. It goes on: “The historical spend element determines 25% of the overall formula allocation and drives a large element of the variation in funding across areas. This bakes in…arbitrary differences in council funding that have arisen over time, and lead to large variability in funding per high-needs pupil across councils”. On the high needs block part of the direct schools grant, it says: “The present high-needs funding system was introduced in 2018, when numbers were mostly stable, and it incorporates many historical measures of need and spending that already drive substantial geographical differences in spending per pupil. It is ill-designed for the present context of rising need”. The f40 organisation has said: “More than 20% of high needs funding is based on a local authority’s historical SEND spending, which bears no resemblance to today’s funding landscape”. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the system urgently needs reform. Part of the problem is the problem of local government funding generally. In Somerset, £2 out of every £3 of council tax goes on care, whether that is adult social care or care for children, including special educational needs funding. It is no wonder that the outgoing Conservative leader of Somerset county council described that as a “time bomb” that “is ticking”. It is unfortunately likely to go off and affect children and families across Somerset, who are suffering the consequences of the legacy that our councillors are now trying to deal with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) pointed out, the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant has compounded the problems and challenges for authorities such as Somerset, which have a low property base value across the county compared with property values in other part of the country and have historically low income levels as a result. The national funding formula therefore has to be improved. The f40 organisation—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on her work with f40—has said: “Government is aware of the unfairness and has indicated that it wishes to level up, but it is a very slow process and, at the current rate, will take around 20 years for equitable funding to be established. That is a whole generation of children. Children should have the same opportunities and resources, regardless of where they live or go to school”. I am sure Members across the House agree with that and I urge the Minister to make good on that promise to reform the system. Three things in particular need to be done. First, we need greater support within schools for special educational needs children. That will reduce costs later; we all know early intervention matters for younger children and has the most effect. Secondly, we need more hubs locally providing specialist provision and to not rely on the private, unregistered schools sector for much of our special educational needs provision. That is highly costly and not serving pupils’ best interests because it means transporting them long distances. Thirdly, we need more investment, which comes back to reform of the national funding formula. Liberal Democrats particularly want to see reform of local government funding and social care funding, but also above-inflation increases in school funding and a dedicated national SEND authority. That is the kind of reform we need to see in this Parliament and I hope very much the Government will deliver it.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I endorse the clause on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, given that it lays out plans rather than an unplanned approach. Provided that interested parties have an opportunity to scrutinise those plans and be involved in them, we also support the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Consents for generating stations and overhead lines: applications

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not demur from much of what the Minister says about the provisions. To go back to his remarks about the delays not being caused solely by the chaos under the previous Government, is it not a fact that during the last few years of the Conservative Government, the delays at the decision stage, which is meant to be three months, rocketed? The regime, which began as one in which every section of it respected the deadlines, became one in which every section respected the deadlines with the exception of the Secretary of State. The intention of those drafting the Planning Act 2008 was that, in such circumstances, a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State when delaying the decision would serve as a disincentive on the Secretary of State for doing so. That clearly has not happened. Will the Minister reflect on whether any other measures could be taken to eliminate the delays caused by Secretaries of State making decisions on NSIPs in future?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to move amendment 32, which stands in my name. We are pleased that the Government have kept their manifesto commitment to publish the long-awaited consultation on the land use framework—something the Liberal Democrats had long called for. The consultation states: “Optimising how we use England’s land will be essential to delivering the Government’s Growth mission and the Clean Energy Superpower mission”. It rightly recognises that a “strategic approach to land use strategy and planning” is needed if we are “to avoid siloed…decision-making and…unintended consequences or unanticipated costs.” It says that that will also inform decisions “to guarantee our long-term food security...support development...achieve our targets on nature and climate…and support economic growth.” Those are good objectives. However, the Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised that the land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use land; instead, it is about providing the principles, data and tools to empower decision makers. It is right that the land use framework should not become prescriptive, but there is a real chance that it will become an expensive waste of time if it is not bolted into the planning system. To succeed, we need an efficient legal link to planning and spending decisions; otherwise, the land use framework will likely only sit on a shelf. Part 1 of the Bill rightly recognises the need for more efficient ways to keep national policy statements up to date. In the past, NPSs have fallen behind Government policy, which has led to delay. For example, as Justice Holgate noted in the Drax development consent order challenge, the energy NPS designated in 2011 left important questions about greenhouse gas emissions unanswered because it did not reflect Parliament’s net zero decisions. To avoid that kind of disconnect and delay, NPSs should have a direct link to the land use framework, as proposed in the amendment. The amendment would help to ensure that the land use framework has a dynamic link to major infrastructure decisions, without becoming too prescriptive. That would help to protect the environment and agriculture by guiding projects away from the most damaging options early in the process. It would also help development by improving certainty up front, reducing the challenge of judicial review were the relationship between NPSs and the land use framework left to the courts to determine. The land use framework must be aligned with national policy objectives to inform the policies needed to deliver those objectives. Failing to consider the land use framework when reviewing national policy statements would also perpetuate siloed decision making. It would leave the land use framework as toothless and without the necessary weight, undermining public confidence in land use decisions. The amendment would not bind decision makers or prescribe specific land uses but would meet the Government’s stated objective of better informing decisions and supporting the delivery of a shared vision for English land use that balances the need for housing, energy, infrastructure and food security with our statutory climate and nature targets. In his remarks when he launched the land use framework, the Environment Secretary said that the framework “will work hand in hand with” the Government’s “housing and energy plans…creating a coherent set of policies that work together, rather than against each other.” Ensuring that national policy statements in these areas consider the land use framework is therefore essential to realising the Government’s objectives of joined-up decision making. The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee highlighted the issue in its report, which found that the “overarching theme” from witnesses to the Committee was the “lack of integration” between nationally significant infrastructure projects, both “with other NSIPs (including other projects within same policy area), and with the wider planning system.” It recommended: “Energy and other large-scale infrastructure projects should be incorporated into a land use framework.” An obvious and effective way to do that would be to ensure that any review of the national policy statement complied with the land use framework. Without that, and without the amendment and the institutional and legal levers to create change on the ground, a land use framework would likely just be another strategy on the shelf.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises another example of a failing that could have been addressed by parliamentary scrutiny. Hon. Members may be wondering why I am referring to the acoustic fish deterrent, but the fact is that such concerns do matter to people, and people do care about species loss and habitat loss. A simple change in Government policy—for example, a ministerial speech changing Government guidance—could provide a pretext or a basis for a change to a national policy statement without any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, if the NPS changed, EDF would be allowed to get rid of its acoustic fish deterrent, and there would be no further scrutiny on that basis, but that is not a good way to make policy.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (a). This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).