Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 January 2003.

Standing Committee G

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Barbara Roche (Labour, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock;

(2) 12 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings to be taken on the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (and so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.

TABLE Sitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 1st Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 — 2nd Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 — 3rd Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 (so far as not previously concluded) 11.25 am 4th Clauses 14 to 36 — 5th Clauses 14 to 36 — 6th Clauses 14 to 36 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2 5 pm 7th Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53 — 8th Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53 — 9th Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Part 5 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 5 11.25 am 10th Part 6, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 6 5 pm 11th Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90 — 12th Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90 (so far as not previously concluded), remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill 5 pm

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Amess. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say how much we are looking forward to debating matters under your's and Mr. Pike's chairmanship. I have had the great pleasure of knowing you for some considerable time. You were extremely helpful when I first became a Member of Parliament. You will have no difficulty ruling over the Committee, given your background, some, though not all, of which I am familiar with. I had not before realised that you were a teacher, which will stand you in good stead, as will your being a father of five children—anyone who can get through that successfully will have no difficulty with the Committee. Your constituency is Southend, West. I know Southend well; there are places where people can sail on a day like today. There are not many Londoners who can say that they remember getting a sun tan on Southend beach, but I certainly remember doing so. We welcome you and your colleague, Mr. Pike, whose background as a Labour party organiser will equally ensure that he has no difficulty.

We have to discuss important subjects today and in the sittings ahead. We had a good debate on Second Reading. There is no doubt that the Bill, while technical in many parts, deals with issues that are of great interest to all our constituents. They are about the places in which we live, the environment and local matters that affect us. Many of us, myself included, receive many letters and representations from our constituents about planning issues, and our deliberations will be closely monitored by many outside groups and organisations. I look forward to our debates.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind hon. Members that, under the Standing Order, the debate on the programme motion may continue for up to 30 minutes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I echo the Minister's kind remarks, Mr. Amess. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and that of your co-Chairman, Mr. Pike. We will do our best to make sure that our proceedings are expedited in good order, although we shall oppose the Bill through every avenue that is open to us. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill with the Minister of State, her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and other members of the Committee. I hope that we will have a constructive debate, but it will be more constructive if the Government listen to our arguments and accept our amendments.

The genesis of the Bill lies in three excellent Green Papers issued by the Government. The major one, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', sets the context from which the Bill derives. Paragraph 1.2 of the document states:

''England is one of the most crowded countries in the world. Only 8% of the land surface is urbanised, but over 90% of our population lives in urban areas. We need good planning to deliver development that is sustainable and which creates better places in which people can live and work.''

I do not believe that anyone who has anything to do with the planning system would object to that

statement—indeed, they would praise it. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the planning system. Conservatives do not believe that there is much wrong with it that could not be put right. The two aspects that are fundamentally wrong are that it is too slow and that planning authorities do not have enough staff with sufficient expertise.

It would be entirely possible and better to reform the present system than to conduct the root-and-branch reform proposed in the Bill. No Government can introduce an entirely new system and get it right first time. The Bill proposes fundamental change, and I guarantee that members of the Committee will one day be back in another Committee Room on another Corridor discussing another planning Bill to amend this one. It would be better to try to amend the existing system, but the Government have introduced the Bill, and we must debate it.

As I said, the Bill proposes fundamental change. It introduces the regional spatial strategy, which will draw powers from local to regional authorities. It also reserves huge powers for the Secretary of State, which is fundamentally wrong. Surely it must be right to keep planning at the lowest possible level. If one draws planning decisions away from local people, they will not have ownership of the outcomes. They will not be happy with decisions if they feel that they have been imposed on them by the region or, even more so, by the Government. I hope that, even if the Bill becomes law, in practice, the day-to-day practice will be that local authorities, as far as is humanly possible, will make the decisions. We will discuss the regional spatial strategy and the regional planning body under part 1, but we believe that they will draw power away from local people.

The Bill is premature. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has not had Royal Assent, yet we are proposing a whole raft of planning policy for regional bodies that are not yet in place or are not likely to be put in place in some of the eight regions. We will end up with a mishmash of regional bodies delivering planning policy. It may be, although we hope not, that some areas will have elected regional assemblies. In other areas, regional chambers, the Government Office or the regional development agency will be responsible for planning. The country will be broken up into a mishmash of planning and other bodies. That is undesirable and will create further opportunities for Europe completely to dominate this country on a regional basis.

My colleagues have greater planning expertise than I do. We will debate the Bill with great vigour and rigour and take every opportunity to try to improve it. We do not like the system of programme motions. It is wrong to be constrained to a certain number of sittings, because no one knows which parts of the Bill will be controversial or how long it will take to deal with them. Even more than that, the Government have redefined the programming procedure. Knives mean that we have to leave certain sections of the Bill after a certain number of sittings, whether we like it or not. That seems wrong. We should spend longer on especially controversial parts of the Bill. If a part of the Bill is uncontroversial, we should quickly move on

to more controversial parts. I register a protest about the sittings motion. We do not like the procedure; it is undemocratic. If we are sitting on a Committee, we are adult enough to make our own decisions as to how long we should take, and on what matters we want to debate.

Finally, I make one housekeeping point. It seems that under our new hours, we shall all have to get up earlier in the morning. I do not mind that—I am perfectly happy to be here at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. However, if we are to be here at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, let us ensure that the other housekeeping functions of the House are kept up. This morning, there were no notices along the Corridor showing which Committee Room we would be sitting in. Yesterday's notices were there, but not today's. I do not criticise any officials, but we must think about such matters. When I left Portcullis House, the Vote Office was not open. I would be grateful if you would pass the matter on to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Amess. I will raise the matter myself if necessary. People will have to get up earlier in the morning so that the housekeeping functions keep up with the earlier hours of Committees.

We shall oppose some of the Bill with great rigour. We do not like the timetable motion. Having said that, we shall operate in the Committee as congenially as we can and shall try to produce a better Bill at the end of the 12 sittings.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I echo the words of the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in saying what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. If I may extend the goodwill, this is the first time I have had the pleasure of serving on a Committee that is led by the two Ministers present here today. It is probably the first time that they have worked together on such an important Bill.

I must express my reservations about the timetable motion, but before I do, I understand that it is the proper and correct convention that a Member taking part in the Committee, as in the Chamber, should declare any possible interests. I have considered my interests carefully. They are not financial, but as I said on Second Reading, they are a form of reverse financial interests. I am a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have to pay those two prestigious institutions a considerable amount of money in annual subscriptions. For the record, I also have the privilege of being an honorary member of the Landscape Institute—which is tangential to the matters we shall discuss; an honorary fellow and past president of the Faculty of Building; an honorary fellow of the Architecture and Surveyors Institute; and an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If I have forgotten any, I shall mention them at a later stage.

I shall put my quarrel with the timetable motion as succinctly and crisply as I can. The Bill has only 90 clauses, which is fewer than many measures that we examine in Committee, although it does have six schedules. Those 90 clauses and six schedules are,

however, complex, and fundamental in proposing radical changes to the town and country planning system, and in their procedures for compulsory purchase orders. Time is needed to examine the clauses and schedules in great detail. I shall mention a few, to demonstrate the radical changes proposed.

In part 1, regional spatial strategies are introduced, which is a pretty new concept. Part 2 then deals with local development and the crucial loss of powers that the county councils will suffer. Part 3 provides for the new concept of a development plan and the proper introduction of sustainable development. I repeat one point that I made on Second Reading, which is that I hope that even at this late hour the Government will consider including a definition of sustainable development. Part 4 is about development control and the simplified planning zones. Again, that is a new concept, although it echoes the simplified planning zones and old enterprise zone concept of the early 1980s.

I find part 5 intriguing. It is entitled ''Correction of errors'', which refers to the slight errors that are sometimes made in drawing up development plans. However, I wonder whether part 5 should be a part of every measure introduced by the Government. That is a serious point because of the limited timetable that is imposed on all Bills in Committee. This may be an argument for another day, but it is true that much legislation that passes through the House of Commons is not properly examined because of the constraining time factors and so has to be examined in the other place.

Part 6 provides for Wales. I hope that my mathematics is as correct as my geography. I am assuming that Monmouth is part of the Principality, and if so, four Committee members come from the Principality. I am sure that they will have much to say about the provisions that relate to Wales. Part 7 moves us on to the important issue of compulsory purchase and the new concept, of which I am broadly in favour, of lost payments. Of course, there are also the ''Miscellaneous and general'' provisions.

The Bill also contains six schedules. Schedule 1 is about ''Local development orders: procedures'', which is again a complex issue. Schedule 2 is the ''Timetable for decisions'', and schedule 3 contains ''Amendments of the planning Acts'', which refers to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Schedule 4 contains amendments to other Acts, and I have counted at least 12 that need changes made to them. They include such pieces of legislation as the Gas Act 1965, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Finance Act 1969, greater London legislation, the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Highways Act 1980 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

In conclusion, we will be scrutinising a Bill that is a labyrinth of complexity that would make the Byzantines drool with envy, and we need plenty of time to examine it. You may be able to confirm this at an appropriate time, Mr. Amess, but I understand that the afternoon sittings are open ended. However, I

think that we will need more than 30 hours to conduct the scrutiny of the Bill that Parliament expects.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I look forward very much to serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and that of your colleague—I will greet him at the appropriate time. The Minister made one or two observations in which she chose to speak on behalf of us all. If I can pluck up enough courage to speak on behalf of all Members who have taken off their jackets, I will say that I hope that you did not mind, as we should have asked first. I trust that that is order.

There is a tradition in the House that the usual channels do not normally contribute to debates. Unfortunately for some people, the rule does not apply to the Opposition, so I will choose my words to say what a pleasure it is to work with the usual channels on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) cannot answer back, so I will not take advantage of him. Some Committee members may not know that I learned about planning in Wansdyke as the chairman of its planning committee when it was a separate authority. If my home of 44 years must be represented by a Labour Member, which I regret, I am glad that it is the hon. Gentleman rather than some of the worse ones that I have come across. I hope that he will in due course be a member of my Whips Office rather than somebody else's. It has been a pleasure to meet up with him for the first time since he has been in the House, and I look forward to working with him.

The Minister said, rightly, that being a teacher might stand you in good stead, Mr. Amess. I started off as a teacher. After 15 years as a Member of Parliament, I think that I would rather have to keep a classroom under control than this place, so perhaps it is not quite as straightforward as was suggested. As for having five children, I have not managed that many. However, my son, who is now 32, occasionally says that bringing up children is a doddle compared to trying to live a father who is an MP, so even having five children might not be as useful as the Minister seems to think. I have not enjoyed the pleasures of Southend beach, though if the Committee finishes early, I might use the time to take a look at it.

It might helpful if I declare a non-interest—my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) declared a reverse interest. Mine is that for five years when I was a member of a council, I was the chairman of the planning committee. That might be useful to the Committee, though hon. Members might get tired of some of the anecdotes—they are 20 years old.

The Government's Green Papers start with the premise that planning is wonderful, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold seemed to suggest that that is self-evidently right. However, when I was the chairman of the planning committee, I approached all such matters by saying that it was the democratic right of the individual to do with his property what he chose, unless there was a good reason to prevent it. I therefore do not start from the premise that it is good to have planning and to decide what people should be

allowed to do. We are in the business of deciding what we should take away on behalf of society. As the Committee proceeds, I shall at every opportunity challenge anything that takes something away from the individual's rights over their property, so that it is justified and a good argument is given. That is one of the reasons why I think that we do not necessarily have enough time.

Another of my concerns is that I hope that there will be a lot of consideration given to the countryside. Both of the Ministers are from urban areas, although that is not a criticism—they cannot help that. Although fewer people live in the countryside, it constitutes a greater part of the country. It is tempting to concentrate on overcrowded, urban development and such difficult problems and to forget that the same legislation applies to a huge portion of the country where the arguments are entirely different.

Also relevant to my involvement in the Committee is that I shall enthusiastically support anything that the Government decide to do to stop the monstrosity of planning inquiries that go on and on. When it is finished, part of terminal 5 at Heathrow will be in my constituency. I would welcome anything that can prevent the gross waste of money and the uncertainty. There came a point when all that people in my constituency wanted was a decision. The majority of my constituents want terminal 5 and are glad of it, but everybody got to the point at which they would rather have been told no than to go on for year after year of blight, uncertainty and difficulties. The Government of the day, be they Labour or Conservative, must address that absurdity whereby a few people—the head-in-the-sand, knee-jerk, ''We're against everything'' brigade—are allowed to put at risk the prosperity of a community, or threaten through delay a business that employs thousands of people.

In a dry summer, some 20 per cent. of my constituency—the reservoirs around Heathrow—is underwater. Unfortunately, at the moment, somewhat more than 20 per cent. is underwater because of the Thames. The issue of flooding should occupy our time, and loom large in the questions of what sustainable development is and how one can control what happens elsewhere.

The programme motion is wrong, and I encourage the Committee to reject it. We must give a Bill of this sort the most thorough examination. It is tempting for a Government with a large majority to say, ''This is all nonsense. There is no need to talk about it. We've thought about it, we have a majority, so why are they just going through this?'' It is the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to examine thoroughly every last syllable, every last word, and certainly every last clause. The House should not pass legislation unless it is justified. I long for the day, although I doubt that it will ever come, when I can be a candidate at a general election and promise in my manifesto that I will not legislate during the next Session of Parliament. That would be wonderful, but it is not going to happen. A Government, especially one with a large majority, must be made to justify everything that they want to do.

Guillotining Committees is not done for the benefit of good legislation, but for the convenience of the

Government and the parliamentary timetable. Someone sits down somewhere and says, ''We need to have this through by Easter, this through by Whitsun and that through before the summer so that we can have a nice, quiet, orderly life. It would be awkward if the legislation that we propose is so bad and so controversial that it is held up, and we find towards the end of the session that we have not dealt with any of it.'' That is the logic of the guillotine and of saying that our Committee should have only 12 sittings. It has nothing to do with the Bill or good planning or improving development in this country, but everything to do with the convenience of the Labour Government and their Back Benchers who want to go to the cinema or the theatre of an evening. That is why my colleagues and I oppose to the programme motion.

It is fundamentally wrong to say, ''We have 12 sittings, and this is how we are going to use them.'' The Programming Sub-Committee sat yesterday, which you will know as you were chairing it, Mr. Amess. For your sins, there was a vote at the end of the sitting, which has not happened before. I shall come to the reason. I thank the hon. Gentleman who pointed me towards the usual channels, which made it possible for me to talk to the parliamentary counsel who had written the guillotine motion. I discovered that it is not what the Government wanted. They wanted a guillotine at the end of every sitting so that they could control us completely and tell us, ''We will talk about this until 11.35 am and about that until 5 pm, and that will be that.'' They wanted to pay no mind to how important the subject might be.

At least some common sense appears to have prevailed. At the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) asked the obvious questions why the knives were where they were, and why those chunks had been chosen. He received no answer. This morning, the Minister of State came to the Committee and formally proposed the motion. She provided no explanation why the Government believe that it is sensible to guillotine the sittings in such a way. What has led them to the conclusion that we can consider part 1 in three sittings? It may be possible, or even sensible, but it is not god enough simply to say blithely, ''We have such a big majority that we will vote for it anyway. It does not matter, and we don't have to bother to tell you.'' We have had no explanation as to why the motion is in that form. I oppose it in principle and in detail, and because the Government could not be bothered to tell us what they want us to support. If they were prepared to tell us, I might be prepared to reconsider my opposition. I am happy to see the motion committed to paper, and will give the Minister a couple of minutes to try to do at the end of the sitting what she should have done at the beginning.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have studied the Bill in considerable detail. It contains 22 order-making powers for the Secretary of State. To my knowledge, we have not yet seen the draft of any of those powers. I ask the Minister, in a non-partisan spirit, if we can see drafts of those powers as soon as possible for the good housekeeping of the

Committee and so that we can consider the Bill properly in context and, if necessary, table appropriate amendments in good time, so that they are not starred when we come to the appropriate section of the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

That is not a point of order for me, but it is on the record and I am sure that the Minister heard it.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 3.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I shall make a few preliminary announcements before we start to examine the Bill. I am not sure whether we shall always play to a packed audience, but we could investigate the possibility of obtaining a slightly larger Room.

The point made by Mr. Clifton-Brown about the early start is not a matter for me, but no doubt it has been heard by the appropriate channels.

Sir Sydney Chapman asked about afternoon sittings and it is correct that they are open-ended, so, in theory, we could sit until 1 am the next day.

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in this Room.

I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.

Mr. Speaker has asked that members of all Committee be reminded to switch off their mobile phones.

Some hon. Members have asked about taking off their jackets. I am surprised that anyone would wish to do so in this inclement weather, but hon. Members may feel free to remove any article of clothing within reason.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. You referred to afternoon sittings. I understand that one of the reasons for the change of hours in the House was to make it easier for hon. Members to get away from this place. On Thursdays the House rises early and will rise at 6 o'clock today. Have the Government indicated whether we shall sit beyond that time? My assumption at the moment is that we shall not. The Opposition would be happy to do so, but some colleagues must catch trains, aeroplanes and so on and if you have any indication that we may sit later, perhaps you would share the information with the Opposition so that we can make the necessary arrangements to be here late.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

That is not a point of order for me, but it has been heard and I am sure that there would be discussion through the usual channels.Clause 1 Regional Spatial Strategy

Clause 1 - Regional Spatial Strategy

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No.71, in

clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

' ''(1) All plans must be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment.''.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Strategic Environmental Assessment—

'.—All plans must be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before getting to the meat of the amendment, I should make a declaration of interest. As stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and I have property interests. Sadly, I do not think that they will be enhanced by the Bill, but one never knows whether they might be in future.

I pay tribute to the Council for the Protection of Rural England which suggested the amendment. It is a key amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, the Bill places great importance on the new concept of the regional spatial strategy. The concept of a spatial strategy is not new—it means all the development that is going on around us—but it is certainly new on a regional basis. We will examine later the procedures for drawing up those spatial strategies, which bodies will do so and which body is to be nominated, but under clause 1 we consider what they will contain.

Surprisingly enough, considering the importance of the matter and the huge detail that the Bill goes into, the detail of what is to be in the regional spatial strategies is pretty thin. It is a missed opportunity. Clearly in this increasingly litigious age, it is likely that they will at some stage end up in our domestic courts or the European courts. The judges will have to make a judgment about what is supposed to be in them. The courts are reluctant to over-rule any decision that is set out clearly in a Bill of a domestic Parliament. That is particularly true of the European court. Therefore it is desirable—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should direct his remarks specifically to the strategic environmental assessment. If he continues to discuss these matters on a broad basis, my co-Chairman and I might not be minded to have a stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I was coming precisely to the point, Mr. Amess, which you have pulled me up upon. We have to put the matter in context and explain why the amendment is necessary. We want sustainable development frameworks and strategic environmental assessments to be included but the Bill does not go into sufficient detail. The regional spatial strategies will need to include sustainability and economic matters.

European directives require that the environment be considered in drawing up those plans, particularly on larger developments. I agree on the whole with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that a Government should not interfere with an individual's right to do what he wishes with his property. The problem is that one person's development can be another person's deficit, so a

planning system and a regional spatial strategy are needed.

In respect of the regional spatial strategy, there is huge concentration in the powers not only of the region, but of the Secretary of State. Under clause 9(3) he can draw up the spatial strategy himself and revoke it at any time under clause 9(5). We need a system whereby we can be certain about what that spatial strategy should contain. The Opposition believe that it should contain a number of things, one of which is the strategic environmental assessment. After all, if one has not made an environmental assessment of the area, how can one come up with a sensible spatial strategy? It simply is not possible. One has to consider the environment. One has to consider sustainability and economic matters. Those are all important matters that need to be considered. There is no way that a spatial strategy could be drawn up without them. We believe, therefore, that they should be included in the Bill. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 71.

I will give specific examples of why an environmental strategy is needed within the regional spatial strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned the example of terminal 5. I know that we will discuss major infrastructure projects later in the debate, but a large-scale development such as that will affect a huge number of people's lives, and for that reason alone the environment must be considered.

People's lives will be affected by many aspects of such a huge development: noise, fumes, traffic and transport. Many issues affect planning decisions, and that is why we believe that there should be an environmental assessment. The Government will have some explaining to do if they resist the amendment. The Secretary of State has huge powers to direct what is in the spatial strategy. If, despite those powers, he still resists the amendment, there is something wrong with the system.

The development of a port has a huge environmental impact. One of the first Committees on which I served in this place considered the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in 1992. That was a highly controversial development. In those days there were no environmental assessments, and that project had a huge effect on the environment. I have been to that area since then. Had I known then what I know now about how the environment would be affected and how the finished product would end up, I would have voted for the Bill with alacrity. The whole area has been improved: development has taken place, the environment has been considered and, in many ways, enhanced by good planning. That is precisely our aim in the Committee, and it is the objective at the heart of the Bill—the regional spatial strategy.

We can all discuss the mechanisms to implement planning, but it is the content of the plans and strategies that is important. That is why we must consider the environment.

I urge the Minister to consider whether it would be possible to include such an amendment. However, even if the amendment is rejected here, part of our function is to flag up such issues for another place, so

that we may return to the discussion, and eventually improve the Bill by including in it this amendment or something similar.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

May I too welcome you, Mr. Amess, to the chairmanship of the Committee?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I apologise in advance, Mr. Amess, for the colour of my shirt, and apologise particularly to Government Members, who will have to look at it.

I will speak about new clause 2, which is virtually identical to amendment No. 71, so they have been grouped together. I will not go on at quite such length about the purposes of the new clause; I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Cotswold said.

I understand that we have to comply with the European directive on strategic environmental assessment by July 2004. This would seem to be a convenient point at which to include that in the Bill. I understand that the directive will require all decision making by the Government and public authorities to be subject to strategic environmental assessment, which will entail consideration of the wider context for decisions, strategies, plans and policies. In those circumstances, will the Minister explain how, if the Government will not accept the amendments or something similar, they will be able to comply with the directive? While we are considering the Bill, it would make sense to ensure compliance. I shall not detain the Committee for longer on this matter, and I would welcome the Minister's reply.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall detain the Committee briefly, because the two points that I wanted to make have already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and the hon. Member for Ludlow.

It is essential at the outset to stress the importance of environmental factors in our town and country planning system. The Government have stated quite simply that the measure is intended to speed up the planning process. Many people might think that in speeding up the process we can cut corners and give more emphasis to particular, rather than existing, factors, although I accept that that is not the Government's intention. To include a provision that recognises the need for a strategic environmental assessment would ensure that the measure starts on the right road.

My other point has been nicely anticipated by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but the EU directive, which we must enforce by mid-2004, requires that a strategic environmental assessment be included. The hon. Gentleman had a point in saying that the Government will be helped by the inclusion in the Bill of a requirement for a strategic environmental assessment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I suppose that the first sitting of a Committee is a good time to get one's prejudices out in the open so that one can save time later on. I realised that it would not be long before an EU directive reared

its ugly head. I sometimes wonder why we waste our time when, bit by bit, Brussels is sending us directives and all we can do is comply with those, rather than run our own country. I have got that off my chest and I hope that we do not have to go around that course again. I hasten to add that on such occasions I am freelancing, and making no statement, or voicing no policy for the Official Opposition. One of the reasons why I was put in the Whip's Office was in the hope that that would shut me up, but hon. Members will discover as the days unfold that that tactic has been singularly unsuccessful.

It is crucial that we consider where town and country planning started, so that we do not lose sight of it on the first day. In my view, town and country planning started, and must remain as, land use planning. It is about what we can do with land, what land is suitable for and what we should develop on it. The debate is about what goes on, not about who does things and who lives where. There is a fundamental difference between land use planning and social engineering.

I was worried when I discovered that we were, at the first hurdle, overlooking the environmental element of the Bill. In respect of the structure plans, the old district plans and these new-fangled things based on artificial regions, one could see that there was always an increasing tendency, the further one got from the planning application into the generality, for people to try to use town and country planning legislation to achieve their own social objectives. That is not my understanding of the Bill. If the Government accept the amendment or new clause 2, we could make that clear. I have no view either way, because both of those use slightly different wording to achieve the same objectives.

I am happy to support the hon. Member for Ludlow, if he wants us to, although if he wants to support us we will welcome that. The principle serves as a reminder that the whole debate and all the proposed legislation are founded on the environment and on land use. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold in that. I am amazed that in drafting the legislation the Government did not flag up the starting point. It makes me suspect that they see the legislation as a vehicle to advance the new Labour project—whatever that might be—rather than to make sensible use of the country's land. We will discover that as time goes by.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, who speaks officially for the Conservatives, says that there should be a strategic environmental assessment. I hope that we can discuss the technical matters before lunch, because getting one's mind round phrases such as regional spatial strategy after a good lunch may be difficult for some of us, although I cannot speak for the whole Committee. Some of the acronyms will become more familiar as time goes on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Has my hon. Friend noticed the paradox in the Bill? Whereas the Secretary of State has taken huge powers for himself, there is little to define exactly what a regional spatial strategy is. Is that not a deficit, which is why our amendment should be accepted?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the alert student of the Notice Paper will have noticed, I have tabled a significant number of amendments, many of which attempt to persuade the Government to define what they mean.

I have been involved in too many Standing Committees in which bold statements have been made about a regional or spatial strategy for this or that. When one probes, the answer is that the phrase means what the Government want it to mean at the time. If the Government push hard enough, powers are given to the Secretary of State to invent what it means when it suits his purpose. Tucked away further in the legislation—as we will see in this Bill—it is prescribed that so and so must happen and certain things must be produced, with a small rider at the bottom of the page that reads, ''or anything else that the Secretary of State says should be produced.'' I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

May I add some weight to my hon. Friend's point? The Minister will disabuse me if I am wrong, but I understand that this is the first measure to mention regional spatial strategy. Surely, a definition is essential.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sure that that is right and I hope to hear the Minister accept that point. However, there is a problem of particular importance before we reach that point. The wording of the amendment is crucial. It does not say that regional plans must be subject to the assessment but ''all plans''. If accepted, the amendment would not limit the clause to the regions but go right down the line.

The amendment does not refer to regions as such. I appreciate that we tread a difficult path. I do not want to pre-empt a decision on a stand part debate, or get too involved in the rights and wrongs of regions. However, for the purposes of the amendment, an element of regionalism must be seen in the context of the environment. As the debate unfolds, it will become clear that I think the regions are artificial and stupid and that the Government are wrong, which may be ruled out of order, but whatever we think about the regions, they are artificial constructs.

There is no such thing as a natural region of the south-east. We could have a long debate about whether other bits of regions could be described as natural, but the south-east region—the one in which my constituency will have the misfortune to lie if the Government do not see sense—is artificial. It exists only for administrative purposes.

The one thing that the environment takes no account of is the administrative convenience of the Government of the day. To try to make environmental assessments coterminous with administrative boundaries is nonsense. The amendment makes it clear that the provision should not be directed only at the artificial regions.

I have the first opportunity to refer to the flooding that has hit my constituency and from which my constituents are still suffering. The River Thames is no respecter of the boundaries of the south-east. It

gathers its water from well beyond the artificial region. Sometimes, environmental assessments have to be targeted at an area bigger than a region and sometimes at an area smaller than a region. It is not always possible to see the environment as a single issue.

The amendment would require an assessment of the river system based on river basin boundaries, paying no regard to administrative convenience. The Thames gets its water from where it gets it—and there is an end to it. The Thames provides a good example. I am unsure exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold did on the Committee considering the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but it was undoubtedly an education for him. I have spent more time on the London barrage on the Thames.

Many of the Bill's provisions refer to so and so ''or London'', which is treated separately from the rest of the south-east—probably right administratively. However, with respect to the flooding in my constituency, it would be easy to go to Teddington, lift the sluice gates and send it all down here, as appears to have been done for Maidenhead. An environmental plan, whether regional or local, dealing with the use of land in Spelthorne would have to take account of flooding. That means examining where the water is coming from—outside the south-east region at the top of the Thames—and where it is going at the bottom, which is also outside the region because it is in London. The Thames barrage is the point at which a decision must be taken about how much water to allow in without flooding London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold rightly says that the amendment would apply to all plans and must not be constrained by the concept of the region. The Government must assess the environment issue by issue. I have provided the example of the river basin. We also require a separate environmental assessment on soil type. The sort of agriculture that is possible is greatly constrained by soil type, and the type of agriculture will determine the population necessary to be kept on the land and the requisite services to work it.

As I said, a separate environmental assessment of soil type is necessary before drawing up the plans. The same boundaries cannot be used as for a river assessment. We could go through the individual issues one by one and say that all must be the subject of the assessment suggested by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ludlow. We must be clear about founding the entire principle of the Bill on the use of land rather than social engineering.

I referred earlier to the fact that the two Ministers present represent urban constituencies: that is how it is. Many of the environmental issues to which I am referring go way beyond the towns into the countryside. All our planning law is rightly both town and country-based.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point about the crucial issue of flooding. We all feel sorry for the people in my and others' constituencies whose homes are at risk of, or have

been, flooded. Does he agree that a development in one area, particularly near a flood plain, can lead to flooding in another area? If we must have a regional spatial strategy—neither my hon. Friend nor myself want one—the environment can best be assessed at regional level, but every region should also have to consider every other region's environmental strategy.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is becoming very broad and the chances of having a stand part debate are about 60–40?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hear what you say, Mr. Amess, but does Saddam Hussein know about the 60–40 chance in this debate? If you make a decision, I should be grateful if you could make it known at some point, because some important broad issues about regionalism are covered in clause 1 and I have been careful to avoid them. If it is for the convenience of the Committee to hold the general debate at this stage, let us do so, but otherwise let us confine ourselves to the amendments.

As to the environment, and my hon. Friend's point, the amendment is pertinent, because it teases out the difficulty. I do not know whether Lechlade is in my hon. Friend's constituency—[Interruption.] In that case, he makes the point very well. If he wants to drain his constituency by digging channels and getting water to the Thames even faster, the chances are that Staines will be flooded even more in due course. No Government would suggest that Lechlade should be in the south-east region, so at one end of my constituency's flooding problem there would be a region with a barrage, and at the other would be my hon. Friend, starting off a different process. That covers three regions at least—my knowledge of what happens between the south-east and the Cotswolds is a bit vague, so it might even be four.

Nevertheless, even though the Minister may feel that the wording of our amendment or the new clause is not what he wants, we should be perfectly happy to discuss different wording and a different way of achieving the desired outcome. It is crucial to start the process with an environmental assessment. I hope that the Minister agrees with that, both for the practical reason that it will improve the Bill and because it will be provide us with a reminder that this is a land use exercise, not a social engineering experiment.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Amess, and agree with other hon. Members in expecting to have fun over the coming weeks. I am sure that that fun will be informed, controlled and disciplined under both you and Mr. Pike.

If I were being pedantic, I would echo some of the housekeeping matters that have been mentioned. It is not very helpful when the cards indicating sittings say that our 6 o'clock programming sitting is going to be at 7 o'clock and that our 8.55 morning sittings will be at 9.55. Many of us are confused enough without

occasional errors in the usually robust assistance of the House authorities. I have no declaration of interest to make, either unpaid, reversed paid, unpaid or otherwise. Some of that struck me as almost confessional, rather than simply as a declaration of interest. If we are making confessions, I have to declare that for my sins, in a perverse past, I spent 11 years on a planning committee in the London borough of Harrow. I enjoyed every minute of it, much to the perplexity of my colleagues, who thought that planning was for anoraks, and ran a mile whenever there was a vacancy on the committee.

I am also, happily, an ex-Whip who can speak. I enjoyed not speaking when I was in the Whips Office—something that I commend to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Before I come to the amendments, it might be useful to consider where we are up to. Nobody on the Labour Benches would disagree with the substance and thrust of what has been said by Opposition Members about the environment. However, we would disagree about processes and structures.

We do not start from a vacuum. Much regional spatial strategy will be based on the current regional planning guidance system, the detail of which is set out clearly in PPG11. What is included in that guidance? Among other things, the scale and distribution of provision for new housing, and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. The environment is already at the heart of the RPG system from which the RSS system will grow and develop.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister rattled through that list so quickly that I am not sure that I caught it all. Will he confirm that it includes drainage and flood considerations?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The list specifically talks about waste treatment and disposal, and would, I contend, include drainage and flooding under infrastructure. Flooding is dear to my heart, as I have the great pleasure—or otherwise—of being the Minister responsible for inland and coastal flooding. When I say that I am responsible for flooding, I do not mean that I can stop it, although the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) suggested yesterday that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could, when he said that the Prime Minister had promised that, after 2001, there would no longer be such floods.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I thought that the Prime Minister walked on water.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

My right hon. Friend certainly walks on water, but he does not create it.

I believe that flooding and broader disposal would be included in that sweep of environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals, waste treatment and disposal, but I will happily return to the existing PPG11 to confirm that.

As important in the context of the amendment is the fact that, currently and under the new system—I do not want to pre-empt the new PPG11, which I shall

come to—regional planning guidance and, indeed, local development documents are required to conform to the existing sustainability appraisal framework. That means that every plan, from the local to the regional, must be fully assessed, as the RPGs and unitary development plans are, in the context of environmental impact, such as climate change and natural resource impact. It is important that we are not starting in a vacuum.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I think that the Minister inadvertently confused RPG11 with PPG11, which raises another question. Once the Bill is enacted, will the PPGs disappear? Will we have only regional planning guidance and not have general planning guidance?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Planning guidance will remain. The hon. Gentleman will know that we want to revamp the structure of the PPG process and make it far more strategic and user-friendly through the use of plainer English as and where appropriate. As I said, the guidance system will remain. Unless something flutters over to me from my officials to tell me otherwise, I do not think that I confused things. PPG11 is the relevant PPG for regional planning. I am sure that RPG11 means something, but I am not entirely sure what.

As we move from RPGs to regional spatial strategies, there will need to be a review of the relevant PPG, and that will contain the detail that hon. Members seek about what should be in the RSS. Beyond that, in the spirit in which the debate started, we agree with much of the detail about environmental dimensions and impact and the other considerations on which hon. Members have dwelt.

Hon. Members have rightly said that future revisions of RSSs will be subject to a European directive. To provoke anti-European Union prejudices, let me refer to European directive 2001/42/EC—that is the general ''bureaucratese'' of the Union—on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. That is often called the strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, directive, although the directive does not use that term. As the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Chipping Barnet said, member states must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 21 July 2004. The Government will consider how best to do that, which includes consultation on the proposal. The process of consultation and of finalising how we incorporate the directive into our own domain has begun, but no firm decisions have been taken.

The Opposition amendments would have greater validity in terms of structure and process if we were starting in a vacuum and there had been an absence of environmental considerations, but that is clearly not the case. Given that there have been such considerations, it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that process. It will be better to bed that process down properly to achieve the proper consideration of the environmental dimensions that we all want. We should not pre-empt the consultation process in the Bill.

Amendment No. 71 is, therefore, unnecessary and would create confusion on how the environmental effects of RSS revisions should be assessed until that consultation process has been completed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister asserts that the amendment would create confusion. I hear his arguments about some of the details, but how does he envisage that confusion happening? How is a proposal that makes something clearer likely to cause confusion?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

RPGs will be the core initiative on which RSSs are based. RPGs are dealt with in the context of the existing sustainability appraisal framework and all the environmental and other considerations in PPG11. By confusion, I mean that the amendment asks us to move from that position to one that fully adopts all that is in the SEA directive without knowing the Government's overall approach to the implementation of that directive, pre-empting the response to the consultation of environmental groups and others. By the time that all those processes have unfolded, we will be at a stage at which subsequent RSS revisions can be carried out properly, fully within the framework of the Government's response to the SEA directive.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It is only 18 months until the point at which we will have to comply with the directive. If consultation is under way, why is this Bill being discussed now? In a matter of months, we might be in a position to incorporate the directive that we know is to be introduced. We will return to the matter some time during the next 18 months, so surely it would be better to put the two stages together.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If we were operating in a vacuum, that would be an entirely fair point, but we are not. The RPGs are rooted solidly in the broader context of the sustainability framework in which existing environmental assessments have been made. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to speed governing our thoughts on the Bill. We will not reach a stage during the next 18 months at which every single RPG has turned completely into an RSS. We are about to move on to the second and subsequent stages of RSS revision and development. Would that such speed could prevail.

By the time that we have reached a complete evolution from RPG to RSS, and before we arrive at any notion of the initial revision of the RSSs, the directive and the means by which the Government will incorporate it into planning law will be long established. That will be the most appropriate time to decide where to go with the SEA process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As the Minister knows, the directive has been in draft for some years. It has taken much discussion to get to this stage. If the Government are going to resist the amendment, what considerations have they made of how to implement the directive without it?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, I shall come to that shortly. I should have liked to say that it is extremely unusual for a directive to be in draft and knocking around for so long without being

implemented but it was ever thus—I think that that happens with every single directive.

There is a slight difference between the thrust of amendment No. 71, an addition to an existing clause, and that of new clause 2, because it is a separate new clause. That alters matters ever so slightly, although the words are broadly the same. New clause 2 seems to seek to require all plans dealing with spatial developments and town and country planning to have an SEA carried out. That is inappropriate and adds to the confusion, given that it goes far beyond the scope of the directive. We are being asked not just to implement the directive, but to go well beyond that. I do not know how the Government will deal with the consultation process and the toing and froing before July 2004. It may well be that the Government arrive at that position when they consider the implementation of the directive and perhaps issues beyond that; I simply do not know.

It would be wrong to include in this or any other Bill something that, initially at least, for whatever good reason, goes well beyond what the directive asks for. We have time to wait for the consultation on the SEA directive and we should wait for it. The regions themselves can deal with how to implement the directive when they come to the RSS implementation. The Bill already requires there to be a sustainability appraisal of the proposals in plans when preparing revisions to the RSS and when preparing the local development documents, to which I will return. That carries on the core of the environmental assessments that are needed, through the sustainability appraisal framework, for the existing RPGs and other aspects of planning. The sustainability element and the environmental dimension are already there.

As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, the Government are currently consulting on the draft guidance on the directive, which, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, has to be in place by 2004. The draft guidance is structured to enable authorities to comply with the directive within the context of the broader sustainability appraisal framework. There may be things in our framework that go well beyond what is in the directive and enhance it. That relates to the point that I was making about new clause 2. Although I fully take on board all the important points that have been made about the environmental dimension by Opposition Members, and although we all share an interest in that dimension, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. The proposed new clause goes wider than the directive and although that may well be the direction that we take, we do not know—we will find out within the next 18 months.

It is better that resources should address the need for the SEA, where that is appropriate—it may not necessarily be appropriate in relation to every plan—as and when the consultation period has finished and we are ready to implement the SEA directive. By that stage, much of what we want to do in terms of changing the planning system will be in place. It will be for the regions and regional planning bodies, under

guidance, to take forward the SEA directive in the context of the sustainability appraisal and other dimensions.

Although I fully accept the serious considerations and points made by Opposition Members, I firmly believe that amendment No. 71 and new clause 2 add little to the environmental and sustainability dimensions, in terms of building on the RPGs and what may or may not come out of the SEA directive. I assure all hon. Members that the Government are deadly serious about planning being rooted in the core of the environmental dimension and sustainability, as is shown by clause 38 and other clauses. In the nicest possible way, I ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments, so that we can proceed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am not sure whether it is the amendments that will cause confusion, or the Government's response to them. Initially the Minister seemed to argue that it was too soon to do what the amendments propose, but then he seemed to argue that the Government were going to do it anyway. Which is it? Saying that it is too soon, but we are going to do it anyway is a marvellous way of causing complete confusion. I hope that the Minister will reflect for a moment or two and clear that up.

Initially—the hon. Member for Ludlow made this point in his intervention—we began to hear an argument about abandoning the Committee and going away until we have some answers to enable us to decide what is appropriate. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that he does not yet know the Government's overall approach to the directive. Nor does he know what the consultation will say and therefore what the Government's response will be. That does not just affect this amendment. If the Government have not made their mind up on these issues, which have a direct and immediate bearing on the Bill, how in heaven's name can we be sure whether what we are doing is for real and for a decent length of time or whether it is just an interim measure? I think that I heard the Minister say that there are PPGs and regional guidance at the moment. If we do not know what the Government's view is, or what the consultation will be, but we have an existing system that works after a fashion, the existing system should be allowed to go on working after a fashion until we know those things. At that point we can return and deal with the process properly.

The first half of the Minister's response was along the lines of, ''It is too soon''. We would agree with that. We would be delighted if the Minister reflected on that over the lunch break, returned this afternoon and told us that we need not come back again because he had withdrawn the Bill. That would deal with that approach, but I suspect that it will not happen.

The Minister stated that the Government intend to proceed with the process because other factors point toward it. If what the amendments are designed to achieve will happen anyway, what in heaven's name is the matter with accepting them? They are designed to do what the Government are doing. If they will make things clearer, they should be accepted. Perhaps the

Minister would like to have a stab at a better response to the arguments. He has said that it is too soon, or that we are doing it anyway. Until now, all I have heard is additional confusion, not a response to the contributions from the Opposition.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am delighted to sum up on the amendment. We have had a good discussion. Perhaps it has gone slightly wider at times than you would have wished, Mr. Amess. Nevertheless, that has been important in putting the amendment in context.

Although I am not going back to the subject of the European court, it is clear that it will have to implement EU directives. If the Government will not accept our amendments, it is incumbent on them to explain clearly how they will implement the directive. The directive is exactly what it says it is: the strategic environmental assessment 2001/42/EC. In that context, 2001 means that the directive was tabled in 2001, therefore the Government have had at least two years to consider the matter, and they now have only 18 months in which to implement it.

Despite our probing of the Government through our amendment, they have not told us what progress they have made in preparing for the implementation of the directive, which will come, as the hon. Member for Ludlow says, in 18 months time. I urge my hon. Friends to support my amendment. If the Government press the matter to a vote, we will support the amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne touched on one or two points. The Government were unclear in their thinking. They were not able to explain what they have done to implement the directive. They said the amendment was unnecessary because they had already made good progress in implementing it, but they were not able to describe that progress.

The Minister relied on another argument. He said that the amendment was unnecessary because of the regional planning guidance. The record will show that my intervention was right: he confused RPG 11 with PPG 11. That is an easy mistake to make, because there are too many wretched acronyms around. I do not blame the Minister for that. However, the Committee has a duty to be clear about what is included in the Bill. I would rather amend the Bill, so that in drawing up the RSS—I am sorry to use the acronym but it is easier to say it—everyone is clear as to what they have to take into account, instead of relying on the RPG mechanism, which can be altered at the whim of the Secretary of State.

We have used the planning guidance mechanism. The Minister will be aware of a current court case in which the whole guidance system was in doubt. I am sure that that case will go to the House of Lords. At the moment there is some doubt about whether planning and other guidance can alter what is in statute. That is why it is important that we get the wording of the Bill right, and why the amendment should be made.

The final argument on which the Minister relied had to do with sustainability, which is dealt with under clause 38. It is true that clause 38 provides that clause 1 ''must have regard to'' sustainability, but as my hon.

Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet says, there is no definition of sustainability in the Bill, so we do not know whether a consideration of sustainability will include an environmental assessment. I have heard what the Minister has to say. He has done his utmost to convince the Committee that the amendment is not necessary, but I contend that it is. I shall press the amendment to a Division, and urge hon. Members to vote with me.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in

clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out paragraph (1).

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 133, in

clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

'(1A) The RSS will set the spatial framework for all other regional strategies'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The key amendment of the group is No. 133. It would ensure that the regional spatial strategy set the spatial framework for the other regional strategies, and particularly the regional economic strategy, because we do not want different strategies to work against each other at a regional level. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendments or explain that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that strategies do not work against each other. There are so many regional strategies that one should have pre-eminence. Amendment No. 133 would ensure that the regional spatial strategy had pre-eminence, not least because that strategy will get the most public consultation—although I would prefer it if the Bill provided for still more consultation on RSS—and public examination. It is important that RSS should be the overarching strategy.

Clearly, a sensible RSS that puts in broad terms the arguments for aspects of planning at a regional level will have to work in conjunction with the economic strategy. If the two were to work in different ways, and not closely together, it could lead to great problems. The Minister may be hoping that sensible regional bodies will ensure that the work is done, and that the strategies work closely in conjunction with one another, but I would prefer it if provision for that were made in the Bill, or if an assurance were given that some other form of regulation would ensure the pre-eminence of the RSS. That way, we could insist on joined-up thinking at a regional level, and it would ensure that we met the objectives that the Government are trying to achieve with regional government. They want regional government to be the driving force

behind economic growth in the regions. If that is to happen, the economic strategies must tie in with the planning strategies.

I shall not tax the Committee for much longer on the issue. I am keen to hear either how pre-eminence will be ensured without being included in the Bill or that the Government are willing to accept the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I have sympathy with the theory that the hon. Member for Ludlow is advancing, but I do not think that I can accept his amendments.

Amendment No. 131 would delete paragraph (1):

''For each region there is to be a regional spatial strategy (in this Part referred to as the ''RSS'').''

While I abhor the whole idea of regional planning, to delete the provision for a regional spatial strategy would be a nuclear option, and it would make a nonsense of the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I made it clear that amendment No. 131 is not a substantive amendment. Amendment No. 133 is the substantive amendment, and it is the one that I would press to a Division.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

However, the amendment paper shows that the lead amendment, on which we would vote, is amendment No. 131. Therefore, we must address it before we discuss amendment No. 133. When one tables amendments, one must consider whether they make any sense. Amendment No. 131 would be a nuclear option, and it would create difficulties.

Although I have sympathy with the theory behind amendment No. 133, I think that it would be difficult to implement. The regional planning body will be responsible for drawing up the regional spatial strategy, and we expect it to draw all its strategies together, including its spatial, economic, environmental and sustainable strategies. However, I am unsure whether the Bill should state that the planning strategy should be pre-eminent—that it should stand above everything else. All the strategies need to be considered, and the regional body should be asked to draw them together.

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but if he were to press it to a Division, I do not think that I could support it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I rise to support what my hon. Friend said, but I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow not to think that I am being pedantic or nitpicking: Opposition Members do not have access to the same level of expertise as have the Government, so I might also have tabled amendments that are flawed. However, it is vital that paragraph (1) remains in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman would have done better to try to change that provision so that it included what he purports to include in amendment No. 133.

When I read that amendment, I could not understand it because of the way that it is phrased. It states:

''The RSS will set the spatial framework for all other regional strategies.''

I thought that that referred to regions other than that particular region, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had phrased it like this:

''The RSS will set the spatial framework in that region for the other strategies.''

I make that point gently and, as we are voting on amendment No. 131 rather than on amendment No. 133, I shall not pursue it further.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

What I have heard tempts me to have a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. Member for Ludlow. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said that amendment No. 131 was a nuclear option that would wreck the Bill. The hon. Member for Ludlow said that it would enable sensible regional bodies to do something, but ''sensible'' and ''regional bodies'' are a contradiction in terms. He then suggested that the Bill was a vehicle for successful regional government. If the nuclear option makes the Bill unavailable as a tool to make regional government work, I have a degree of sympathy with him for all the obvious reasons.

I am in some difficulty because the amendment refers to regional spatial strategy, but the Committee needs to know what on earth that is before it can sensibly make up its mind on the amendment. If I were to pursue that, we would be slap-bang into the clause stand part debate, because it is very difficult to know whether there is a good way to arrange regional spatial strategies—what should come first, second, third and fourth—without that debate, which I do not wish to pre-empt.

I applaud the hon. Member for Ludlow on finding a means of wrecking the Bill. If he has any more ideas, he might share them with me so that we could do a deal and save the Government from making fools of themselves.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I commend the hon. Member for Spelthorne on his honesty, at least. Notwithstanding the parliamentary scrutiny that we must give the Bill, curtailing our deliberations appeals to me, too, although not to the extent that the hon. Gentleman describes. As the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Cotswold said, amendment No. 131 is the lead amendment, on which are focusing. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, it would wreck part 1 and the whole notion of a future planning system with a regional and local dimension. In that context, I oppose amendment No. 131 and urge the Committee to resist it.

I shall dwell a little on amendment No. 133, as it raises some fairly important points. I acknowledge the drafting expertise and comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. The closest example of an RSS is what is at present under discussion in a London context—the London plan. The Government have responded to the plan as deposited and will, with other consultees, partake in the public examination of it in due course. By any measure, it goes far beyond a simple land use document, an old county-structure local plan or a unitary development plan. It tries to draw together a range of other issues.

The definition given by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was essentially that the process is almost circular—it is never-ending. It would mean that the north-east would be responsible for the other seven regions, the south-east could comment on and have a special strategy for the north-east, and so on.

Leaving that aside, there are, rightly, several regional strategies, and the regional spatial strategy is but one. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the consequences of the amendment would be that under the Bill the regional planning body would have control of and responsibility for regional strategies, albeit without the power, expertise, experience or resources to implement them. That cannot be appropriate. The comment that there must be greater co-ordination and integration of all the strategies at the regional level is fair. I take that as the root of amendment No. 133, and I accept that position.

The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear on 18 July that he wants far more co-ordination and integration at the regional level, but he does not envisage that being enforced with a sledgehammer by regional planning boards.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I certainly acknowledge that there are drafting problems with the amendment. The Minister accepts the principle of integrating policies at the regional level. While he is on the subject, would he give a bit more detail about how that will be achieved? I accept that our proposals may not be the best way.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

We want to ensure a two-way relationship between the regional spatial strategy and other strategies, with the regional strategy informing the others as well as taking account of them. To an extent, there has been a two-way process in the London context. It is necessary to include air quality and energy strategies, investment, operational strategies, the RDA strategy mentioned by the hon. Member for Cotswold, and operational plans for relevant infrastructure and public service providers.

I shall say something that may at the same time outrage and bore Opposition Members. We believe that the best way to develop the relationship of the regional planning body—and, through it, the regional spatial strategy—with others at regional level is through guidance, not through statute. It is not for central Government to tell each region how its planning body should deal with all the other strategy-making bodies at regional level. We shall set out strategic frameworks and guidance on how they should operate. So long as all the bodies are working in the interests of their regions, nothing that we suggest, whether to do with equality, energy or regional development, will be anything other than consensually based, complementary and robustly interconnected.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

May I take the Minister back to his point about preferring to use guidance rather than statute and ask him—this is not a criticism solely of his Government—is it of benefit to the Bill? If we are still to depend on guidance, does he agree that the guidance in most inquiries tends to be treated as though it were statute—once the Government have

given guidance, inspectorates follow? Would it not be better to put such matters in the Bill, so that they are subject to parliamentary debate, rather than to issue guidance notes that do not require the Government to be accountable to the House of Commons?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I understand the tension to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, it is almost as important to consider the matter the other way round. Why should we impose from the centre a framework or operational guidance for each region to specify how the strategies should be incorporated and interrelated? That is a matter for the regions. I suspect that any guidance issued would concern the local governance of the strategies, and would not be strictly defined planning policy guidance with all that that entails.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister has underlined my argument by explaining what the guidance will be and the extent to which he may seek to control from the centre. If the Government want to control from the centre, they will issue guidance. If they do not want to do that, why issue it? However, they have said that they intend to issue guidance, so he is admitting that they want to interfere. I do not object to their doing so, but it would be more honest if that were to be shown in the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

At the risk of being speculative, I am sure that the guidance will say something to the effect that in each region it will be appropriate if the RDA and the RPB speak to each other so that the RSS and the economic development strategy for an area reflect each other and everyone is working towards the same objectives. It is fine to say that in guidance, but it is not for us to specify in a Bill that Yorkshire Forward needs to tell the Yorkshire regional planning body that it wants certain matters to appear in its document, or vice versa.

One of life's ironies is that in order to secure proper devolution of powers and responsibilities it is necessary to have a strong strategic framework within which people in the regions or localities can operate. None the less, I have taken on board the points made so well by the hon. Member for Ludlow about interconnectedness and integration. Sadly, they were not relevant to amendment No. 131—the poisoned pill—or to amendment No. 133, which I would urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister raised an issue that we need to consider before we vote on the amendment. He said that he had some idea of what the new guidance might say. That is worthy of a little scrutiny. I think that I have heard, for the first time, that the Government are planning a change from the current arrangements for regional planning guidance. I think that I also heard it admitted that a great deal more work had been done on the issue than we were, perhaps, privy to. Surely, that underlines my point. It is perfectly possible for the Government to make a major change from one sort of guidance to another without us knowing about—unless it happens to slip out by mistake during a debate.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The past 18 months are littered with public references to the change from planning policy

guidance to planning policy statements. It was mentioned in the belly of the Green Paper at the very beginning of the process, and was broadly welcomed by professions above and beyond those graced by the membership of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I have not let anything slip; the shift from PPG to PPSs has been in the public domain for at least 18 months.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is something of a relief, but it does not undermine my point. Irrespective of what has been trailed, the Bill will enable the Government to implement provisions without further reference to Parliament. They can put proposals in as many Green Papers as they like and listen to as many august bodies as they like, but they will be free do as they please if the relevant provisions are not included in the Bill.

One reason that has been given for rejecting the amendment is that the Government will make a fundamental change that will make it unnecessary. I press the Minister to reflect on the fact that it is better to come clean, to have everything out in the open and to say what guidance will be provided. If that information is put in the public arena, the hon. Member for Ludlow may well say, ''That's fine. We don't need my amendment.'' However, we do not have that information. It has been hinted that the Government have done a great deal of work and that they probably have many draft provisions, which they will implement once they have Royal Assent. However, we do not know what will be in them. If they are so far down the track, why does the Minister not issue them to us? He could write to us after this sitting to give us sight of them so that we can know how much work has been done and whether it satisfies our concerns and enables us to withdraw some of our amendments. Otherwise, we will have amendment after amendment, and the Minister will say that they are irrelevant because he has something in the office to deal with the point. However, we do not know what that will be.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Having listened carefully to the debate, I still do not believe that we have got to the kernel of the problem. Even though amendment No. 131 is defectively drafted, the hon. Member for Ludlow has done the Committee a service by trying to tease out from the Minister how the regional plans will interact.

We should remember that other Departments will issue guidance on regional plans. For example, there will be a regional crime plan, which will presumably include guidance from the Home Office. Any spatial plan will have to take the regional crime policy into account. From what the Minister has said, I am not clear how those other policies will inform regional spatial strategies. What will the mechanism be? The Minister says that issues will be dealt with through guidance, but I am still unclear how the mechanism will work.

We should remember that our words, as written down in Hansard, will form part of the legislation and can be used in subsequent court cases, as in the Furniss v. Dawson case. I therefore want a little more

clarification from the Minister. I do not want him to tell us, in a vague sort of way, ''Oh well, it's going to be done by guidance.'' I want to hear precisely how other plans will inform the regional spatial strategy, because I do not think that we have been told.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In the light of our debate, I think that the amendments have achieved their purpose of making the Minister elucidate the problem of how the Government will link different strategies at the regional level. I share his view that it is better to leave decisions to regional bodies, and I wish that the same relatively enlightened approach could be taken to other aspects of regional policy.

The House may have to keep a watching brief over the way in which the regions work. I am sure that when they are up and running, the best of them will work very well. However, the great danger with having so many regional strategies is that some of the worst regions, and the different Departments, will not talk to each other, and we may need to consider the issue again. For the moment, however, I am happy with what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 134, in

clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'Secretary of State's' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly's, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State's.'

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 135, in

clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 136, in

clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 137, in

clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 138, in

clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 139, in

clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 141, in

clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 146, in

clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 148, in

clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 149, in

clause 5, page 4, line 7, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 150, in

clause 5, page 4, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 151, in

clause 6, page 4, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State's' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly's, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State's'.

No. 152, in

clause 6, page 4, line 11, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 153, in

clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 154, in

clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 156, in

clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 157, in

clause 7, page 4, line 26, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 158, in

clause 7, page 4, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 159, in

clause 8, page 5, line 2, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 160, in

clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 161, in

clause 8, page 5, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 162, in

clause 8, page 5, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 163, in

clause 8, page 5, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 164, in

clause 8, page 5, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 167, in

clause 9, page 5, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 168, in

clause 9, page 5, line 19, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 169, in

clause 9, page 5, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 170, in

clause 9, page 5, line 29, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 171, in

clause 9, page 5, line 30, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 172, in

clause 9, page 5, line 33, out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 173, in

clause 9, page 5, line 37, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 174, in

clause 9, page 6, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 175, in

clause 9, page 6, line 4, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 177, in

clause 11, page 6, line 31, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 179, in

clause 12, page 7, line 16, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State.'

No. 180, in

clause 13, page 7, line 39, leave out 'The Secretary of State may by regulations require' and insert 'The elected Regional Assembly may require'.

No. 181, in

clause 13, page 8, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

No. 182, in

clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

You are probably relieved that that long list has come to an end, Mr. Amess. I certainly will not repeat it.

I had hoped that the amendments might be broken up to some extent, as they probe the points at which the Secretary of State retains old powers or introduces new ones. In our discussion on the previous set of

amendments, I was pleased to hear the Minister saying that he would like to leave it up to the regions to find the best way of working. This set of amendments, which is not complete, shows just how many times the Secretary of State is mentioned in the first 12 clauses. The regional planning bodies and the elected regional assemblies, which we would like to have this power, are mentioned far fewer times. If I were tempted to repeat the exercise for the whole Bill, we would find that the Secretary of State's powers are mentioned 250 times.

The Liberal Democrats are with the Government in wanting regional government, but we want effective regional government with strong powers. I believe that I am the only member of the Committee who has just sat through consideration of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, and I am afraid that the matter is at the forefront of my mind. The regions that the Government propose to set up have such limited powers that there is great danger that the assemblies will be regarded as talking shops and will therefore discredit the idea of regional government for a long time.

Later, we will discuss referendums and whether there should be regional government. The public will want to know whether the regional assemblies will have sufficient powers to make it worth their being set up. I am afraid that people will vote against regional assemblies on the ground that the Government are not giving them enough powers. What people want is proper regional devolution.

The Minister will no doubt go through the amendments with a fine-toothed comb; I am sure that his officials have already done so. He will tell me that amendment X or amendment Y should not be accepted for one reason or another, and I am sure that he will be right. However, the amendments are designed to tease from him the reason why the Government are retaining and, in many cases, increasing the powers of the Secretary of State when, in at least some cases, they could easily relax those powers and devolve them to an elected regional assembly—when one exists. We will return to the point that such powers should not be introduced until we have elected regional assemblies. At the moment, there is at least some democratic control.

I shall not tax the Committee by going through the amendments one by one, although I am tempted to do so. I will leave that to the Minister; I can see that he is preparing to rubbish some of them and to tell me that such provisions could not possibly be implemented. Before he does so, I must admit that I have already spotted a mistake in one of the amendments: an elected regional assembly could not make regulations.

The point of the amendments is to get the Minister to justify exactly why the powers have been created for the Secretary of State. I urge him to try to find ways in which additional powers could be released to the elected regional assemblies. By the end of proceedings in Committee, he might have found one or two ways to show that he is a real devolutionist and not a centralist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Your reading of the amendments was a marathon, Mr. Amess.

All the amendments are intended to achieve a reduction in the Secretary of State's powers, with those powers being given to the regional assemblies. In some cases that might be technically possible, but as the hon. Member for Ludlow has admitted, in other cases and in terms of order making that would not be possible. A balance must be struck between the powers of the Secretary of State and those of the regional body. I would rather the Secretary of State than the regional body had the relevant powers, and I would rather the local planning authority had more powers. The present distribution of the powers of the Secretary of State, the local planning authority and the county council is just about right, which is why I am opposed to the Bill. There is, however, a balance to be struck and an argument to be had.

The hon. Member for Ludlow has done the Committee a service by proposing the amendments, although I am not sure that he needed to table so many in order to make the point and adduce the argument. He has provoked the discussion, but he is wrong. I would rather the balance rest with the Secretary of State, as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman intends to push the matters to a vote—I am sure that he does not intend that and I apologise for having to leave temporarily during his speech—I would not support him, although I understand the reasons for his proposing the amendments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I accept the thrust of the 38 amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow and I share his view. If there are not elected regional assemblies—whatever we think of that proposition—the power should not go to the regional body. However, I am not sure that I can go along entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I admit at the outset that I have not had the time—I have not done the relevant research either—to look at each of the 38 amendments. If there is not a regional assembly, it is essential that the powers, such as they are, should remain with the present local planning authorities. One thinks of the county councils in the shires.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I hope that I am correct in saying that the amendments do not refer to county council powers that would go to the region, but pertain to the Secretary of State's retaining powers or being granted new ones in order to control what the region does. I am trying to devolve at least some of those powers to the region. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman on county councils that that is not a separate issue.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in proposing the amendments he has clearly done his research, which I have not. Will the Minister confirm whether the powers are presently held by the Secretary of State, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said? That is a rather unfair question, because they are not the Minister's amendments, but if the answer is yes, I will agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow. Apart from—possibly—the Welsh Assembly, the only body that could currently be affected is in London, where the powers would not apply because of

the planning processes and procedures for the boroughs and the powers of the Mayor. That would not be the case in the regions, so where there are no elected regional assemblies, I want the Minister's assurance that the powers in question are already held by the Secretary of State, not the county councils or local planning authorities.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I should like to follow some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. We must be clear that the hon. Member for Ludlow has done us an enormous favour. He has done a lot of hard and necessary work, which the rest of us now do not have to do, and I believe that the Minister must respond to all 37 amendments. He does not have to do so at length—I am not being silly—but he should tell us which of the 37 amendments are technically impossible.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

There are 38.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

There are 38, I hear. Any advance on that?

Will the Minister tell us which of the 38 amendments are technically defective? If he did so we would be left with a residue that could be implemented—the Government may not want to do so—and should be pursued. That would not necessarily have to be done now, but the hon. Member for Ludlow is on to a principle that has my support. In the previous debate, the Minister said that the Government wanted central control but to devolve effectively down the line. When we know which of the 38 amendments could be implemented, the Minister should tell us why he is against the devolution for which the amendments call.

I make no secret of the fact that I am against the stupidity and concept of regional assemblies, but I am a realist, so given that the Government are insisting on them, I am determined to enter the debate about how to make them work well. The hon. Member for Ludlow is right to flag up the possibility of devolving more responsibility to the bodies, because there is nothing worse than a talking shop. I am almost arguing against myself, but when they are set up, the assemblies could be discredited by talk about how toothless and stupid they are. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would give them something more to do.

I accept that now is not the time to debate in detail all 38 amendments. In fact, there are 200 amendments in total. However, if the Minister agrees to the principle that something can be gained by an examination of whether we can find more powers in the Bill that can be devolved, we will have the opportunity to conduct extra research and the hon. Member for Ludlow can continue to do us a favour by doing the work for us. We could then have a serious discussion on Report about the principle and what else in the Bill we can devolve to the regions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the amendments are designed to devolve the Secretary of State's powers to the regions, does my hon. Friend agree that the logical conclusion is that more power should be brought down from the region to the local level? If that happened, we would be more encouraged to support the amendments.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend is right; that was my next point. I was going to say as gently as possible to the hon. Member for Ludlow that I go only so far with him in trying to help the process of devolution, if that is what the Government are determined to pursue. I go along with the idea that powers should be devolved if there is a regional assembly, as before we give artificial regions real power, they have to be democratic. However, I want to examine another matter, to which we can return on Report. If the principle of devolution is accepted—if some of the 38 or 200 amendments are for real—the hon. Gentleman's amendments leave me unhappy because they provide that the powers stay with the Secretary of State when there is no regional assembly to which the powers may be devolved. If the Minister accepts the principle that things can be devolved, I accept the principle that there should be an elected assembly. In the absence of an elected assembly, the powers should go further down again.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

When we discussed the programme motion, the hon. Gentleman said that the planning system works reasonably well and should stay as it is. In fact, many of the powers are the same as the Secretary of State's existing powers. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would go one step further and take the Secretary of State's current powers down to local councils at a planning level for such things as appeals and the setting of guidance? I am referring to the powers currently held by the Secretary of State or those that it is proposed he should hold, not to those currently held by councils. I would not want those powers to move upwards. The amendment is an attempt to move things at least one stage down. Is the hon. Gentleman worried, as I am, that taking appeals and planning guidance down to the local council level might not be appropriate?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have no difficulty with that. I was not arguing for a blanket move in that direction, which is why I said that if the Government consider the principle of moving powers appropriate, we could have a debate about that among ourselves and consider properly drafted amendments relating to appropriate powers on Report.

I readily accept that not all 38 amendments—even if they were all in order—or even all 200, are appropriate. However, if we agree the principle of several, we can have a debate. I do not want an individual debate about each of the 38 amendments, although I am happy to sit through one if anybody else is. I do not want to detain the Committee by considering whether each amendment is appropriate. If the Government indicate that they accept a general principle, we will work sensibly and decide on the amendments that we want and that we believe to be right.

There is no distinction between the Secretary of State's existing powers and these new powers. If devolution is for real, we want to question not only the new powers, but existing powers—we must get at both sets. Let us be clear that we are discussing the phrases in the Bill that say that the Secretary of State has the power to direct, prescribe or require. That is

real centralised stuff. I am not blaming this Government for that, because successive Governments have used those words to give more power to the centre. However, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has found 200 examples in the Bill of executive powers given to the Secretary of State. The Government want a devolved arrangement in which regional assemblies are substantive, but 200 references to executive powers given to the Secretary of State in a short Bill such as this represents the exact opposite of devolution.

I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in general. Although I would be grateful if he gave us a view on all 38 amendments, I do not want that in detail. The work must have been done to determine how many amendments are technically defective and how many we could pursue in the future.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is the third time that the hon. Gentleman has told me how to do what I need to do in Committee. I shall resist that, as I have in the past. It is not for the Government to go through all 38 amendments root and branch to say what we like, what we do not like, what is feasible and what is technical. The Liberal Democrat research department has not formed part of my life during my relatively short time as a politician. If the amendment comes back on Report or in another place, that is a matter for the Liberal Democrats.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet had it right: this legislation essentially concerns the range of powers that the Secretary of State will have—either existing powers or new ones. Most of the new ones are required to move from the RPG system to the RSS system, as much of what we can do now under the RPG system is covered by administrative law. There have recently been calls for those who draw up RPGs to consider certain aspects, and that is entirely appropriate. The debate is about whether the powers proposed in the Bill for the Secretary of State should move to the regional level where there is an elected regional assembly, which is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet raised. The hon. Member for Ludlow will be pleased to hear that I shall not follow the exhortation of the hon. Member for Spelthorne and rubbish that. It is clear that powers to make regulations, powers of direction and the powers proposed for the Secretary of State in part 4 of the Bill are not appropriate to devolve to the regions or indeed, as I was half-suggesting, to local level. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they were. The Cotswolds planning guidance and regulations would be completely different from those in Durham or in Shropshire.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That is democracy.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is as absurd as having a separate system of criminal law for Gloucestershire and another one for Shropshire. There must be a national framework, national guidance and national strategies within which all these systems operate. Essentially, devolution is the operational devolution of national policy dealt with at local level—it is not about going through each and

every aspect. Some provisions would be more appropriately dealt with in legislation at a regional level, as they would be the business of elected regional assemblies and it would not be appropriate to include them in this Bill, whereas for others that would be entirely inappropriate.

One amendment would give an English regional assembly the right to recognise or not recognise the regional planning body, but it is clear from the Bill that an elected regional assembly would be the regional planning body. Therefore, the amendment would give an elected regional assembly the right to recognise itself as a regional planning body with all that that entails. We could discuss that at length, but I am not going to.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister touched on a matter, the import of which he did not quite realise. He implied that there would be one nationalised planning system. I am sure that he would agree that part of the rich cultural heritage of this country is that we have had different planning systems and designs in different parts of the country. I hope that that is what he wishes to maintain, otherwise we would repeat some of the nationalised planning problems that we created in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an entirely obtuse point. If a nationalised planning system is a system of national planning law and guidance with a national framework and circulars, to be interpreted and implemented at local level by the appropriate body, that is in essence what we have had since the late 1940s. It is how we progress. In the rich and glorious past that the hon. Gentleman talks about before and after the war, we did not have a separate London borough of Barnett planning system that ended at the Edgware road, becoming the London borough of Harrow planning system, which was distinct from the Hertfordshire system that started at the High road in Bushey. There was a national legislative, regulatory and administrative framework within which all those boroughs operated, and that will prevail in future. The key element underpinning the Bill is the realisation of a national legislative, regulatory and administrative framework that is far greater than anything afforded us in the past 10 years.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I accept that many of the amendments would not be practical or suitable, but some of them would be. For instance, the power to make decisions about whether there is an examination in public is held by the Secretary of State, not the elected regional assembly. In Scotland and Wales, however, that power is held by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. If we are to provide real devolution for the English regions, why does the Secretary of State retain that power in England?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

We shall discuss this issue on, I think, 23 January, when the hon. Gentleman asks questions on youth in Westminster Hall. There is a two-tier system in Wales that involves the unitary and the development strategy at national level. The Welsh Assembly owns that national strategy, and it is right and proper that it determines whether there is an examination in public. I confess that I do not know a great deal about the Scottish planning system, but I

suspect that the position there is not dissimilar. To all intents and purposes, the RSS is owned by the Secretary of State, and an examination, in public or otherwise, will be determined by him in that context.

As ever, we have to legislate in the broadest context possible. It is right and proper that an RSS should ultimately be determined through a full EIP, which is how that of the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London is being decided at this very moment. It is right and proper that, if a region determines, for whatever reason, capricious or otherwise, that it does not want to go down that route, the Secretary of State has the reserve or default power to say that it must hold an EIP for the RSS, in accordance with proper governance and to ensure proper consultation and participation of the residents of the region.

There may be merit in some of the amendments, and I agree that the hon. Gentleman did the Committee a service by tabling them. However, it was perhaps a tad excessive to table 38, or perhaps he was unlucky that all 38 were grouped together. During our proceedings, we shall return to many of the themes raised by the amendments, but as they stand they are flawed.

I will not necessarily go through the amendments individually. They pre-empt what may subsequently be in a Bill at regional level, and they also pre-empt the democratic process of the House, because we have not even secured the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill yet, and we do not know whether the good people of each and every region in the country want regional assemblies.

The Bill has been drafted in the full awareness of what may or may not prevail in future and the contingencies that may apply accordingly. I shall resist the proposal to shift the Secretary of State's powers down to an elected regional assembly, other than when we have clearly said that the RPB in an area where there is a regional assembly will be that elected regional assembly. That is right and proper, but it is more a matter of detail for a subsequent regions Bill than for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [Interruption.]

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister let it slip—I hope that I quote him correctly—that the RSS is owned by the Minister of State. Why, then, are we bothering to debate these amendments at all, or, indeed, the Bill?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister let slip some other interesting things that cannot go uncommented upon. I heard him confess that for the third time he does not intend to respond to what I have to say. I have come to expect that of an arrogant Government: they do not bother to listen to anything that they do not want to hear. I am used to that, and just put it down to where it comes from.

Much more relevant was the Minister's definition of what is going on in his mind when it comes to devolution. I heard, as the Hansard record will confirm, a wonderful definition of administrative devolution: ''The Government will decide, but we will then delegate the implementation. We will let others get on with how they actually do what we order

them to do.'' That is not real devolution. I apologise for saying from a sedentary position, ''What about choice?'', but according to the Minister it is not about democratic devolution. The notion that the people of the Cotswolds might be allowed to choose for themselves is not what he has in mind, and we have that on the record.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Their own planning body.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

From a sedentary position, the Minister let it slip that things cannot possibly be different in the Cotswolds and Durham. Why ever not?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I said that in the context of national planning law, national planning guidance and national planning administration and regulation. Is he seriously suggesting that, however great and good the Cotswolds and its representative are, there should be a separate planning law for the Cotswolds that is distinct from that in every other part of the country?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is a marvellous Member. If the country were to be entrusted to the hands of a local MP it would be him.

The Minister has tried to wriggle out of the argument by claiming that he made his remarks in a national context. He might have intended us to hear them like that, but he went on to discuss the Edgware road. He talked about planning within artificial, rigid boundaries. He said that there could not possibly be a planning law on one side of the Edgware road and a different one on the other, which is where his urban origins begin to show. He believes that there could not be a planning law on one side of Staines High street, where I come from, and a different one on the other. The countryside is not like the Edgware road, Harrow, the London boroughs or the urban areas that I know. We know where the Cotswolds or the Durham countryside start and finish. The countryside is different, and it is nonsense to suggest that devolution could be rigid and centrally imposed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend accept that Secretaries of State judiciously exercising their functions from the centre to allow local decision making is what has given this country its rich diversity?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister's concept is to allow people in the Cotswolds, Durham and the Edgware road to decide how they will implement his instructions. That is his response to the amendment. He has not indicated whether the principle pursued by the hon. Member for Ludlow appeals to him. If only he would give us a simple answer to the question whether the principle of democratic choice and devolution appeals to him. If the wording and targets of the amendments are wrong but he sympathises with the principle, on Report the hon. Member for Ludlow and I could readily suggest democratic ways to devolve, instead of making people the lackeys of the central diktat.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I was unaware that, as well as his other talents, the hon. Member for Spelthorne is a member of the Staines massive. Some of the amendments are inherently flawed and some of them fly in the face of 200 years of case law and administration of the British system. Some powers will be devolved as and when there is an elected regional assembly. We have made it clear that we anticipate that the elected regional assembly will be the regional planning body and will take on board some of the powers in the Bill. It is very clear where we are coming from, but I am not a Liberal Democrat research department.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful that the Minister has clawed back some of his mistakes, which is a little progress. I know that one should not refer to the great turnout in the Public Gallery, but perhaps when the public hear that the ''Member for Staines'' is in Committee they expect to see Ali G. I always disappoint audiences who want to see the ''Member for Staines''. I must be a bitter disappointment not only to you, Mr. Amess, and the Committee, but others who came for a spot of entertainment.

The Minister has ducked the issue. He has made some very interesting observations in passing, which he will come to rue. He has revealed what the Government are really about. When they claim that they are providing another tier, it is window dressing for their implementing centralised control. The Bill is a five-year plan; it is a Stalinist approach to economics.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We have partially achieved our objective by teasing out from the Minister some of his thoughts on regional devolution. I am worried that, although he may consider that there is some merit in those ideas, he will leave matters to another Bill. Power will remain with the Secretary of State if there is no regional assembly, so the framework of the amendments could easily have been put in place where appropriate. I accept that many of them are inappropriate, but some could have enhanced the legislation. They would make matters easier for the Government where elected regional assemblies are established, which I hope will be sooner rather than later. They would also give confidence to those who are keen on elected referendums. Such people would be able to see what some of the powers are in advance of referendums.

In Committee on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, it was argued that we will go into referendums without a Bill setting out the powers of those assemblies. We have been referred to the White Paper. That is not a Bill, and aspects of it can change, so the public have to take on trust that the powers of the regional assembly will match what is in the White Paper. The Government have an opportunity to help that process by finding some point in the Bill where they could accept the principle of the amendments, which would allow power to devolve when the regional assembly is established.

The tabling of that sheer number of amendments was done partly for effect. Many are not appropriate and I accept that. I hope that we can return to the matter on Report, and that in the intervening time the

Government will find some way of including in the Bill provision for extra devolution. With those thoughts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Some hon. Members referred earlier to the number of regulation-making devices and other secondary legislation mentioned in the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that we would provide a running commentary on where they occur in the Bill, and would draft such documents earlier, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said. If hon. Members have not already received details, the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women and I will be issuing a letter today that outlines the starting point of that commentary on secondary legislation and regulations. I thought that the Committee might find it useful to know that now, before we adjourn for lunch.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I thank the Minister for that helpful information.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. In order to disseminate that information to colleagues that are not in the Committee, but are closely following its progress, could I ask that the Minister put a copy of that document in the Library?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

A copy is in the Library, I believe.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister says that that is the case. Could we have it on the Table in Committee so that it is available, in case the post has not done its usual efficient job?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

It is clear that the Ministers have agreed to that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in

clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out 'however expressed'.

This is a small, technical amendment. It is fairly simple and was drafted ingeniously by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I refer the Committee to the Bill, because they will see that the words are completely otiose. Clause 1(2) states:

''The RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within the region.''

I cannot see what on earth the words ''however expressed'' mean or what they achieve. It is overly fussy drafting to insert those words. We are in the business of producing clear, simple legislation. It was George Bernard Shaw who said, ''Genius is simplicity''. That phrase should be written on every draftsman's door in large letters. If it were, shorter and simpler Bills would be produced, and we would not need to spend so much time in Committee. We would be all better off, especially those who had to interpret Bills.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

We are quorate, so we can commence the sitting. However, before we start, the Committee may like to know that a slightly larger Room has been found for us—several hon. Members raised that point this morning. As of next Tuesday, we shall meet in Room 16, which will be more convenient.Clause 1 Regional Spatial Strategy

Clause 1 - Regional Spatial Strategy

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I welcome you formally to the Chair, Mr. Pike, although I did welcome you in your absence this morning. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and we shall do our best to cause you the least possible trouble.

When this morning's sitting was adjourned, I was moving amendment No. 47 and arguing that the words ''however expressed'' are unnecessary—they are overly precise and fussy and they leave a great deal to interpretation. What does ''however expressed'' mean? I should have thought that we had perfectly adequate procedures whereby that the Secretary of State can give a direction in writing in the normal way. The words are therefore otiose; they can mean anything to anybody. Without those words, subsection (2) is completely objective and factual. To insert them is to make the subsection subjective.

Do the words ''however expressed'' mean that the Secretary of State's policies can be sent by e-mail? The Government are keen on e-government, so I assume that they do mean that. Do the words mean that policies can be sent through a speech that the Secretary of State might make—if he says it in a speech, it is a direction—or do they refer to a more old-fashioned way of delivery, such as carrier pigeon? Had we proposed an amendment putting the words into the Bill, the Minister would strongly have urged his hon. Friends to reject it because it was unnecessary and added confusion.

This simple amendment would give the Bill much greater clarity, and make the statement of the Secretary of State completely objective, rather than subjective as it would be under the Bill as drafted. If the Minister accepts the amendment, we can move on quickly.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship.

I support the amendment. Although it deletes only two words, the more I read it, the more interesting it

becomes. ''However expressed'' could mean anything, for example, the Minister could change his policies for the region in response to a question from a journalist on regional television. The Minister will say that that is not what the Bill intends, but including those words leaves matters open to interpretation. The current Secretary of State might not choose to misuse the proposal, but there is a danger in leaving in law something that could be misused by a future Minister. I doubt that the Government want that to be part of their legacy. I am sure that the Minister will agree to some tightening of the measure, because as drafted it is somewhat open-ended.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Pike.

When I read subsection (2) I was filled with amazement. At first I thought that it was included to meet the needs of the Deputy Prime Minister, whose speech has a unique style, but the words do not add to the clarity of the clause. The subsection as drafted is open to abuse and gives the Secretary of State carte blanche—I always like to use a French phrase when I disagree with something. I should be interested to know why the words are necessary and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us. I want to know, too, why they are in brackets: is it a typographical error? Was it in the first draft especially for the Deputy Prime Minister and left in unintentionally? Seriously, I should be interested to know if there is a precedent for the phrase, in brackets or not. Has it been used in any other legislation in this Parliament?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I, too, welcome you as one of our co-Chairmen, Mr. Pike. We had great fun yesterday on a regulatory reform order, and I am sure that we shall have fun during the passage of the Bill.

In my six or seven years as a Member of Parliament, I have sat on the Government Benches—never on the Opposition side—in various capacities from Back Bencher, Parliamentary Private Secretary—

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

You will.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I may well do so. It depends on longevity. I have found that it is always funny little things like this amendment that delay Committees. We will take our time over it rather than being in a hurry. The key phrase in the clause is not ''however expressed'' but what it follows it:

''in relation to the development and use of land within the region.''

That goes to the heart of the approach suggested this morning by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who gleefully dismissed the Bill and the planning system as being essentially about land use. That is not the case. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was and is a glorious piece of legislation of which the country should be proud. I do not say that merely as a planning anorak—I believe that it was a cutting edge piece of legislation for its time. However, through the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which included the spatial development strategy for

London, and in this Bill, we want to move on from the 1947 Act to a real spatial strategy approach.

If we were to leave out, ''however expressed'', the alternative route for drafting would be to put in an telephone book-long list that would be all-embracing in terms of a spatial strategy, and we would have to do far more work than that involved in revamping PPG11. Far from being otiose, or over stuffy or precise, and given the vagaries of drafting English and the lexicon of language that the lawyers like to call English, that phrase, in parentheses, gives us a shorthand way of saying that the regional spatial strategy must set out the policies of the Secretary of State.

In the legalese, ''however expressed'' simply means that, rather than everything being construed as focused on land use in a narrow statutory policy, circular and guidance-fashion, it should be expressed in the broadest way possible à la PPG11. Far from being too precise, those two words will allow the RSS to reflect, as widely as possible, all the spatial dimensions beyond a narrow focus on land use, in which consideration of the granting or refusal of applications for planning permission or listed building or hazardous substances consent would be the primary purpose. That is complementary to the notion behind clause 1 and to making the regional side of our planning RSS-based. It also falls into the context of the debate we had on amendment No. 133. The phrase, however clumsy, will allow the RSS to reflect all those other strategies and dimensions at regional level that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) mentioned earlier.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the amendment, in which we are not arguing about whether the Secretary of State can allocate powers in relation to development and land use within the region. There are clear mechanisms established in relation to how the Secretary of State can allocate those powers.

Why do we need the words, ''however expressed''? Will the Minister answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on whether there is any legal precedent for the phrase? Moreover, it is not clear in the clause whether, ''however expressed'' refers to the RSS or to the policies of the Secretary of State. Will the Minister clarify those issues?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall certainly return to the point about precedent, if the winged messengers on my left permit me to do so. With the best will in the world, I do not carry information about such matters in my head. As for the second point, the phrase is very precise and specific. It is saying that the RSS must reflect the policies of the Secretary of State, however those policies are expressed. That is my reading of it.

It might be helpful if we were to dwell briefly on how a spatial strategy differs from a land-use strategy, and the advantages of the provisions in the Bill over the provisions in the amendment. Spatial planning is about what can be built where and in what

circumstances, and about how the consequences of development will be managed and the particular social, economic and environmental objectives met. All those elements are at the core of the existing PPG11, which is the foundation of our regional planning guidance, and they will be contained in the renewed PPG11. Although we are concerned with development and use of land, spatial policies are not only about the granting and refusal of planning permission, and they need not be entirely or directly expressed in traditional land-use terms. Spatial planning is not a new idea. It is contained in the Greater London Authority Act, on which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet spent the best part of three months in Committee with the rest of us, which was a great delight.

The PPG11 note on regional planning—I have yet to establish what RPG11 is, but I shall inform the hon. Member for Cotswold when I find out—published in October 2000 set out advice on the adoption of a spatial strategy, which extends beyond land-use issues as one of the ways of strengthening the role and effectiveness of regional planning guidance. Such a strategy deals with traffic management and other policies that go beyond land use. Such policies should be included in the RSS because they can have a direct impact on the level of traffic in an area and thus quality of life, air quality, public health and so forth.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I have listened carefully to the Minister and I understand where he is coming from. I understand how the wording came about, but does he share my concern that the provision could be interpreted differently, to the effect that the Secretary of State could set out the policies in any particular way—for example, via the medium of a regional TV station? I share the Minister's objectives, but will he give an assurance that the provision could not be misused in future? An answer may be winging its way over from the officials, and I would greatly welcome any such assurance.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I said before, it is the lexicon of draftsmen that explains why the provision is stated as it is rather than in other ways. I suspect—and I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if I discover otherwise—that the policies must be certified Government policies in whatever form. The ''however expressed'' wording is a means of escaping the narrow confines of statutory planning frameworks, policy guidance and so forth. It is unlikely to involve e-mails, carrier pigeons, illicit notes and the like; it simply means going beyond the narrow confines of land use. I shall write to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the precedent of the parentheses and the words therein, because I do not have the full information to hand.

If we accepted the amendment and dropped the phrase ''(however expressed)'', it could be argued that the scope of policies in the RSS might be limited to the narrower focus on granting or refusing planning permission, listed building consent or hazardous substances consent. Topical subjects—in this city, at least—such as congestion charges included in the draft

revisions of RSS could be challenged as going beyond the proper scope of the RSS.

We should always consider two aspects: the relationship of the subsection to the whole of clause 1 and the interlocking between them; and the relationship between what the Secretary of State expresses as policy and how it figures in the RSS within the context of the new PPG11. I would fully understand the points raised by hon. Gentlemen if we were to pull out one sentence, but in this elaborate parliamentary ''Call My Bluff'' word game, we must always look more widely at the interlocking mechanisms.

The words are included to make it clear that the scope of policies in the RSS goes beyond the traditional narrow focus of land use. In that light, I invite the hon. Member for Cotswold not to persist with the amendment. The provision underpins the essence of clause 1 and the shift from regional planning guidance. From the whole array of policies approved by the Secretary of State, it is important to allow regions to determine in the broadest possible way what should be in the RSS. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I give the Minister some marks for trying, but he has not really answered the questions posed by my amendment and the interventions of the hon. Member for Ludlow. However much we might like to do so, we are not trying to narrow the clause or constrain what the Secretary of State can do. The amendment relates solely to the term ''(however expressed)''.

The clause is sloppily drafted. If the Secretary of State is going to issue policies, they should be clear, on the record and in writing so that they can be produced if there is any subsequent query or court case. It is not clear, despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Ludlow, whether a key speech or media statement or anything else made by the Secretary of State would count as ''however expressed''. The Minister argued throughout that we were trying to narrow the clause, but if he wants it to be more open-ended, he needs only to add ''and other matters relating to these'' at the end. That would make crystal clear what the Secretary of State can or cannot do. The phrase ''however expressed'' simply does not make clear the mechanism by which the policies are to be delivered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made another pertinent point from a sedentary position. The subsection does not make it clear whether it is the RSS that may be expressed in any way, or the Secretary of State's policies. The Minister screws up his face, but we are talking about plain English. The Bill is not clear. The provision is an example of sloppy drafting, and on that basis and in view of the fact that the Minister has not adequately explained what the words mean and why they are included, I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment, which it is very simple, as the only possible means of protest.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to write to me about the precedent question that I raised.

I hope that I am within order, but will the Minister accept that the subsection must be read in the context of the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill, particularly in clauses 2 and 9? They are pretty profound and specific. As someone who wants to get the legislation right and clear, I side with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold in thinking that the words ''however expressed'' should be removed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall give the Minister one more chance. If, instead of answering again in the way that he did, which I expected, he can intervene and clearly say that the policies concerned will be delivered in writing in the normal way, I will withdraw the amendment and not press it to a vote. Unless I can get those clear words, I shall press it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No.3, in

clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'so much of'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.4, in

clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out

'as the Secretary of State prescribes'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am now moving amendments Nos. 3 and 4—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. You move one amendment, and we debate the other one with it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. I am now moving amendment No. 3. This amendment, too, probes bizarre drafting—we seem to be in that mode this afternoon. If I read out subsection (4), the Committee will see that it is drafted in a rather unclear and odd way. It reads:

''With effect from the appointed day the RSS for a region is so much of the regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes.''

What on earth does the phrase ''is so much of'' mean? I think—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that it means that the Secretary of State issues guidance but then directs how much of it applies to each region, but what an extraordinary way to proceed. Why not simply issue regional guidance for each region? The regions are so diverse that we are bound to have different regional guidance for each region.

I made the point this morning that legislation should be clear, simple, understandable and to the point. The Bill is ambiguous and unclear. It is quite

clear that the only person who can issue regional guidance is the Secretary of State. Clause 11(3) repeats clause 1(4) almost exactly—we are beginning to get repetition in the Bill. Repetition is not clear drafting. I ask the Minister to consider our amendments carefully and see whether they would add greater clarity to the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting, Mr. Pike. Whips have too many things to do at the same time, and I was detained Downstairs. I missed the opportunity to take part in the last debate, even though I wanted to make some contributions. Certain members of the Committee will be relieved that I was not here.

While I fully understand that only one amendment can be moved at a time, I believe that the two amendments can usefully be read together, because they raise an interesting point. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that a peculiar way of setting out to achieve something has been chosen, but those points have been made. I am more concerned about what the Government seek to achieve by using those peculiar words.

If I understand it correctly, clause 1 says that there shall be an RSS and it is the duty of the planning body, be it a region or whatever, to produce it. It does all the work, spends all the money, takes all the advice, consults and produces the RSS; then—lo and behold—we come to the subsection that says that, notwithstanding all that, the Secretary of State will arbitrarily decide which bits he likes and which bits he dislikes, and he will state what is to happen. There is no mention of appeals. What on earth is the point of bothering when the jackboots and the diktat will be used, whatever the wording used?

If we set out to draw up an RSS, that is what it should be. We touched this morning on whether we were dealing with devolution for administrative convenience—the great ayatollah in Whitehall pronounces and the definition of devolution is that someone else down the food chain is told to go and implement it—this confirms that we are. It does not matter what is done further down. Whatever the regional bodies produce, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State will decide whether to accept all of it, some of it, none of it, when and how much. If the Government really believe in devolution, that is an extraordinary way to proceed. Having set out the guidance and the framework that we heard about this morning, they should trust the devolved bodies to do what they have been asked to do.

If I were in local or regional government and was asked to do this job, only to be told when I had done it that the Government could not care less and would decide anyway, I would not want to bother—[Interruption.] The Minister may find it helpful to know that I would not be particularly enthusiastic. Nevertheless, I believe that this is serious matter. He has to give us a pretty robust defence of the words used in the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made the point that they are peculiar words to use to achieve something. He must not only satisfy

my hon. Friend about the use of words, he must satisfy the Committee on why he needs those powers, however he describes them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As my hon. Friend has observed, the Bill gives the Secretary of States powers. Having got those powers it is totally within his gift—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. There is a Division in the House. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. If another Division is taken after this one, I will suspend for a further 15 minutes.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I call Mr. Clifton-Brown, who was finishing his intervention on Mr. Wilshire.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I have enough of a job remembering where I am in my speech, let alone where I was before a suspension. In 10 years, this has never happened to me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is aware that the Bill gives huge powers to the Secretary of State. Labour Members ridiculed that comment, but most objective observers would agree with it. Given that that is so, is it not peculiar that the Secretary of State, who has complete power over what he puts into the regional guidance, should want further power to dictate how much of that regional guidance applies to each region? That seems totally bizarre. Does my hon. Friend agree?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I had hoped that my hon. Friend would start not with ''As I was saying'', but by reminding me what I was saying. That would have been significantly more helpful. I know that I am getting old, but not being sure of where we were before we went downstairs is a sure sign of something going wrong with the brain. I shall save Labour Members from having to say that there is a lot wrong with my brain; I just mean that it is getting a bit more wrong as time goes by.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only thing he says that comes as a surprise to me is that the Secretary of State sets out by saying what goes into the guidance. Let us consider the example of an obliging regional authority that listens to the Secretary of State, thinks that the guidance is sensible and incorporates it. First, the Secretary of State says, ''That's what we've put into the guidance, so you'll put it in'', and the regional authority puts it in. Then he says, ''I don't like it, so take it out.'' That is an extraordinary state of affairs. My hon. Friend is right that this is a pretty dodgy Bill, and the more one looks at it, the more peculiar it is.

I think that the point I was making—no doubt you will remind me if I am out of order, Mr. Pike—is that it is not only the wording of the provision that is peculiar, as my hon. Friend said, but what the provision seeks to achieve. I believe that including such a provision would be wrong, but I accept that this is not the only Government who have done so. To say,

''It doesn't matter what you do. At the end of the day, we'll either approve or we won't, and if we don't, we'll unilaterally strike out bits and tell you what you're going to do'' is not devolution or democracy, and a provision that does that should not be in the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I share the Conservatives' concern about subsection (4). The deletions that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would make might cause even more confusion, but I understand their intentions. I read subsection (4) a number of times to try to get to grips with what it is trying to achieve, and I look forward to the Minister explaining it lucidly and cogently.

The problem with amendment No. 3 is that leaving out ''so much of'' would—I think—mean that the RSS was the only guidance that a Secretary of State could prescribe. Clearly, the Secretary of State could prescribe other guidance. Overall, the sentence is somewhat confusing. I am sure that the Minister will come forward with a good reason why subsection (4) is included and will say what it is supposed to achieve in the long run. However, I am concerned about the meaning being so unclear. Again, there is an example of some rather interesting wording, the meaning of which is not at all apparent, although perhaps I am just not feeling bright enough this afternoon. I look forward to the Minister explaining the sentence.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe by regulations how much of the regional planning guidance for a region will become the regional spatial strategy on commencement of the Bill. There is nothing sinister about the provisions, and they have nothing to do with jackboots and diktat. They are about the transition from the regional planning guidance to the regional spatial strategy.

The power is necessary. We have made it clear that our general policy is that the current regional planning guidance should become the regional spatial strategy. The power, however clumsily worded, is necessary to ensure that any RPG that becomes the RSS—and therefore part of the development plan—is appropriate to the region.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I understand that the Minister, in his role as Minister for London, has started some discussions with the local authorities about the Bill. I am sure that he will agree that that is a bit late, given that we are now in Committee. I also started admittedly late discussions on the Bill. Local authority planners find the Bill curiously worded, as though whoever drafted it was new to the job. The Minister has backed that impression with his phrase, ''however clumsily worded''. I hope that he listens to people outside the House because they feel that the way in which the Bill is phrased will in many instances be a goldmine for barristers and solicitors. That is why he should listen carefully to the Conservative party's attempt to clarify the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I was not in any way attacking parliamentary counsel on this Bill or any other. If one were to form a club that said, ''Can we have an English legal system and an English legal lexicon that is actually English, rather than this legalese?'' I would

heartily join it. However, we are yet to have that, so we have the Bill before us.

The situation is almost the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman describes. The words are as they are to obviate legal challenge, capricious or otherwise, and to get over exactly what the Government want. The transition from the regional planning guidance to the regional spatial strategy must be appropriate to the region. Clearly, it should not be out of date. The next thing that people will ask is, ''Which ones are out of date? Which ones aren't out of date? Have you got a whole schedule for which will become out of the date by the time the Bill is secured?'' The answer to the latter question is no. We are not in a position to confirm now those RPGs that are inappropriate to make RSSs, since we do not know when commencement will occur and what the state of RPGs will be then. It is therefore important that we retain the ability to make that decision later. RPGs and the RSSs are the Secretary of State's policy and it is right that he should have the power.

None the less, I inform the Committee what I think will be the case. In London, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley intimated, the Mayor's sustainable development strategy is the RSS—the strategic planning document for the capital. Assuming that the SDS will have been published in final form in early 2004—it will go through its examination in public shortly—the RPG3 for London, RPG3a concerning strategic views in London, and RPG3b/9b for the River Thames will have been superseded by the spatial development strategy. London is not a region as defined in clause 11(1), and will not have an RSS. Instead, it will have the Mayor's spatial development strategy.

However, if one took the position for London and replicated it for another region with overlapping and over-arching RPGs, it would not be appropriate for all the RPGs that had any impact on London, including those that go far beyond London, such as that for the River Thames, to become the RSS for London all of a sudden. That is the thrust of the Bill. Such an outcome would be in nobody's interest. Subsection (4) is designed to address that.

Most of RPG3b/9b concerns the River Thames within London, though not all of it. To the extent that that provision extends outside of London, it will be superseded by the reviews of the RPG in the south-east and the east of England—both areas of the Thames that are not in London. RPG9a for the Thames gateway straddles London, the south-east and the east of England. In the context of the amendments, the RSS for the east of England would include elements of RPG9a that have nothing to do with the east of England, and that is also the case with regard to the south-east.

The Mayor has committed to a coherent sub-regional planning framework for east London to be co-ordinated with planning for the rest of the Thames gateway. That is fine, and as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, the Thames gateway is one of our key growth areas. In view of that, it would be inappropriate and confusing to give RPG9a on the Thames gateway, with the overlapping

consequence for three regions, the status of an RSS. However, that would be the consequence of the amendments.

It is also important to note that none of the RPGs that we may not make RSSs was the subject of public examinations. They were designed at the regional level, without the public scrutiny that RSSs will have.

Even if the amendments were made, the Secretary of State would still be able to retain control by cancelling those parts of the RPG that he did not want to become RSSs immediately before commencement. Dealing with this by way of regulations is more transparent. I assure hon. Members that there are no jackboots or diktats; this is simply about preventing things from overlapping—it is as straightforward as that.

I thank the hon. Member for Cotswold for assuming that I would be cogent, and regardless of whether I have been, I hope that my explanation of this matter will lead him to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On this occasion, I understand what the Minister is trying to say. However, I disagree with him. To issue specific RPGs to each region would be a far clearer mechanism than what is being proposed. Some of those RPGs might overlap in more than one region, but to say to regional planning bodies, ''Here is a block of RPGs; you must decide which of them apply to you and, if you get it wrong, I will withdraw or revoke the whole thing,'' is a bizarre way to operate.

Although this matter is unclear, and I do not like the drafting, we need to make progress, as we must discuss many other parts of the Bill, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Bearing in mind what Mr. Amess said this morning, I am willing to have a clause stand part debate, but I expect it to be focused and brief.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall be brief, Mr. Pike.

This is one of the Bill's most important clauses because the RSS is a new concept. We have been told that it is to be largely informed by the regional planning guidance but, as the Minister has made clear, that is not an examination in public. The Secretary of State will have huge power to direct how and when the RSSs will be introduced, and what their contexts and contents will be. That is a fact, regardless of whether we like it.

We seek greater clarity on that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne consistently made clear, we would like there to be proper devolution. If there is to be devolution, we should allow those who draw up the RSSs to have much greater freedom to decide the policy for their area. We would also like power to be devolved from the regional to the local level—indeed, from the local planning authority back to the parish and town councils.

I am also concerned that there is nothing in the Bill that states that one RSS must take into account what is in adjoining RSSs. For example, as the Minister has made clear, a huge development is going to take place in the Thames gateway that will affect three regions.

As we have heard, what happens to planning in Lechlade at the head of the Thames could affect what happens not only in the Middlesex counties but in the London planning area. This is not the last word on the matter, as several points in the clause need clarification. However, as the Secretary of State has huge powers to put things right, he will no doubt be able to do so.

In discussing the measure, we have an opportunity to get things right first time; the purpose of a Standing Committee is to scrutinise the Bill line by line. I leave the clause with some foreboding knowing that we have not got it right because the Government will not accept our amendments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I follow what my hon. Friend said and in this debate, on clause 1 stand part, we should be able to see how the Bill is beginning to take shape. We have debated, rather one-sidedly, five sets of amendments and I regret that the clarity of the Bill is becoming slightly blurred. I partially accept what the Minister said and I am grateful for the points that he made. However, I am not convinced. There are two key elements to the clause. The first is that in translating a planning system of structure plans into regional, spatial plans, we must have a smooth and clear passage. My principal worry is that in rushing for the RSS from the structure plans, we will denude the planning process of vital safeguards in respect of manpower and in terms of the legislation. It is essential to keep the county councils' expertise until there has been a full transition, whatever doubts we have about whether we are going in the right direction. I am not convinced that that will be the case.

Secondly—I apologise for putting it in abstruse terms, but they are important—one of the reasons I want to stress the environmental factors is that the Bill's simple objective, in the Government's words is to

''speed up the planning process''.

Of course, it can be speeded up without necessarily doing all that is proposed in the Bill and I hope later to make constructive suggestions on how it can be done. Speeding up practically means speeding up the planning process but not at the expense of fairness, and I am surprised that the Government have not said that. To the business-minded person, speeding up the planning process to get development done more quickly is a worthy objective, but it should not be at the expense of environmental factors. That is the key point.

There will be an appointed day for the transition from the structure plans of existing local planning authorities to regional spatial strategies. It would be unfair for me to ask the Minister what day that will be, as it depends on the time that the Bill takes to get on to the statute book, if it does so. However, it would be useful if the Minister could give us an indication of when he expects, or hopes, the appointed day to be, as

that day is crucial in beginning the process of transition from local planning authority structure plans to regional spatial strategies. A smooth transition is vital to the success of the legislation.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It seems to me that the more important an issue, the less is written about it. If anything is crucial to the concept of the Bill, it is the regional spatial strategy. I therefore assumed that it would be simple to find a definition of it. Look as I might, I am not getting on very well. Consider the explanatory notes. I know that they are not always relevant, but in this instance they are. We read that

''Clause 1 provides for a regional spatial strategy (RSS) in every region other than London. The RSS must set out the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed)''—

we have been round that course—

''in relation to the development and use of land in the region. These policies must be concerned with the use and development of land, but they need not be directly related to the grant or refusal of planning permission. They could include, for example, congestion charging policies.''

This is a proposal for something new, arising out of a debate that has been going on for a long time—we seemed to have it ad nauseam when I chaired a planning committee, and that was 20 years ago. We now have a regional proposal on the basis that the county structure gives too small an area. If the driving force is that counties are too small and something larger is necessary, I expect the Government to offer an explanation about the regions that they have chosen. Unless they do, we are forced to conclude that changes are being made with regard to planning purely in order to fit in with another policy—administrative regions—and that, far from trying to improve the system because counties are too small, we are forcing the planning process in order to give regions something to do.

If I understand the Minister correctly—we have no definition of what the Government mean by regions—he is talking about an administrative region spatial strategy; a strategy that is being drawn up to reflect the boundaries that the Government have decided to foist upon England. I am not familiar with the north of England—not only do I need a passport to go north of Watford, I keep being told that I need a visa as well—so I shall not make any points about it. However, I do live in the so-called south-east, and have a constituency in the administrative region that the Government call the south-east, and I have to tell the Minister that that region makes no sense. If he is saying that there should be a regional spatial strategy that reflects his administrative definition of something called the south-east, then the Bill is barmy. Can he tell us why there has to be an over-arching policy that reflects the needs of Southampton, Portsmouth, Brighton, Spelthorne and elsewhere? I have yet to discover the commonality of those towns and areas, or the logic of a regional strategy that links them. They are not linked, cannot be linked, and do not want to be linked.

If we are to say that the clause provides for a regional spatial strategy, we must be clear what we mean by a region and what we are doing. These are not natural regions and this is not land use planning; it

is social engineering. It is saying that, somehow, we shall have a spatial strategy that will create from the artificial something that looks like a region. My constituents want nothing to do with that. They want the interests of their land, their community and their environment to be dealt with as seems appropriate to the natural sense of community in the Heathrow area. What does the Minister mean by ''region''? What makes sense to him in introducing a provision saying that there will be a regional spatial strategy based on a region called the south-east? I am blowed if I can see the logic of that, or why there should be an overall strategy for the artificial administrative region that he calls the south-east of England. It makes no sense.

The Minister needs to be absolutely clear about what he is doing. This morning, I was at pains to explain that when it comes to land use and environmental issues, the area that one has to consider varies. If one is discussing drainage and flooding, one must consider the area of the river basin. That river basin cannot be made to fit the south-east of England. A regional strategy vis-à-vis the Thames has to be based upon the Thames valley river basin, which lies across many different areas, including London. Soil types refuse to conform. The question of a regional strategy for agriculture depends on soil. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us his definition of ''regional''. I suspect that the definition will be self-evident: the artificial regions into which he wants to carve England up to make it easier for Brussels to throw its weight about.

I wonder why we are offered no definition of ''spatial''. Someone must have chosen the word. The nearest I can come to understanding what the Government are up to is in the explanatory notes, which make reference to land use. Is the strategy one of land use? If it is, will the Minister explain why issues such as congestion charges are being dragged into questions of land use? If it does not concern land use, what does spatial mean? It can mean any manner of things and is a most peculiar word. It was probably included because it is different from the other words, and forms a nice set of initials. I even looked at what was in the Library on ''spatial'', and that was not too clear. The nearest we come at the moment is the explanatory notes, which state:

''These policies must be concerned with the use and development of land, but they need not be directly related to the grant or refusal of planning permission.''

It seems that we are extending the concept of town and country planning into something new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, the lawyers are going to have a field day. It would be helpful if the lawyers, when they have that field day, had the Government's intentions set out in Hansard so that they at least have a starting point for clocking up their fees as they haggle endlessly over what the Government are trying to do. Before we make up our minds on clause stand part, we ought to be told what the clause really means. At the moment it can mean all things to all people. There are no definitions provided, and I should be grateful if the Minister

would explain what the Government mean by ''regional'' and ''spatial''.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The clause requires each region to have a regional and spatial strategy and sets out what the strategies will be for a region. What is a region? It is broadly as defined by the previous Conservative Government. The administrative boundaries were set and established by that Government.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If the Minister cannot sleep one evening, he might care to read past issues of Hansard, in which I criticised that Government, just as I criticise him, on the daft concept of artificial regions.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fully appreciate the rather loose notion of collective responsibility in the 1979 to 1997 Government. It does not seem that anyone—new Members of Parliament, old Members or those in the other place—will take responsibility for anything that they did in any way, shape or form. The hon. Gentleman asked what the source and root of regions was, and that is it. It was tweaked, as I fully admit, by clause 11(1) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is sufficient for local planning units in every part of the country—including London, although it is not covered in the Bill—to concentrate on small distinct units, without even considering what goes on beyond them, that is a backward step.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am not suggesting that for one moment. Had the Minister listened carefully, he would have heard me say that regions such as river basins will be much bigger than the administrative monstrosities that the Government are working on. The Thames river basin, for example, crosses several administrative regions. The point is not that small units are appropriate—although they are in some cases—but that some issues extend far beyond particular regions, so an artificial, one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The core of our proposals for regional spatial strategies is the absolute antithesis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Our approach is not that one size fits all, but that each region should determine what is appropriate to its spatial strategy, and that will be rooted in the up-to-date parts of its regional planning guidance. Nowhere does the Bill say that the south-east must draw up its regional spatial strategy using exactly the same template—warts and all—as the north-east, the north-west or, indeed, London, although it is covered by other legislation. Our approach in is absolutely not that one size fits all.

The hon. Gentleman says—this is strange, given that the issue has been a core element of our deliberations on the clause—that the Government should clarify whether the Bill is about shifting the planning system away from a narrow definition of land use. Well, excuse me, but I thought that that was I had been saying, in one way or another, since I first rose to speak this morning. Yes, the Bill is about precisely that—going beyond a narrow definition of land use, planning applications and other more specific aspects

of development control. The country has not stood still since the late 1940s. Time has moved on, and the complexities and interrelationships to which the hon. Gentleman and others have referred dictate that we operate on a regional and cross-regional basis.

To answer the question about the revision of the RSS in each area, let me say that the regional planning body will have to have full regard to the RSS in each adjoining area. Clearly, nothing in nature or the environment recognises distinct boundaries, but if we took that point to its logical conclusion, we would have one local planning authority for the entire country. Devolutionary considerations would dictate that local planning applications from Durham and Dorset were determined by someone in Birmingham, who would be equidistant from both. However, that will clearly not be the case.

The hon. Gentleman is right, but he suffers from a slight confusion about local development documents, the work that local planning authorities do on planning and development control, and the spatial strategy. Spatial is defined in statutes such as the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but core elements are also contained in the sustainable framework with which all our documents must comply and in the regional planning outline. That is precisely because we have moved far beyond the notion of simple land use and a narrow definition of town and country. That is not a political point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister said that other regions must be considered in the revision of the spatial strategy, but we are talking about what happens when regions draw it up in the first place. Can he assure the Committee that they will have to take account of the strategies drawn up in adjoining regions?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I would have thought that that would be a key consideration when the Secretary of State determines whether an RSS is appropriate. However, we are in a transition from RPG to RSSs. We discussed the key elements of RPGs that it is appropriate for regions to consider in forming the basis of an RSS. It would be lovely and simple, as we said when debating the previous group of amendments, if every RPG could become the new RSS, but things are never that simple. More important, once that transition is over, is what people will have to do as regards the subsequent revision of RSSs.

The hon. Member for Cotswold was right, which is why I bear no malice to anyone in the Room for spending so much time on clause 1. The debate is extremely important, and it will dictate the direction that we take subsequently. For the Opposition to see the bogeyman of the Secretary of State being given more and more power is wrong and inaccurate. The core administrative powers, together with the legal and statutory powers that the Secretary of State already has under the existing regional planning system, are no different.

The key difference—we make no apology for it—is that the administrative framework containing the current regional planning powers of the Secretary of

State will be put on a statutory footing. That reflects the importance of the RSS in terms of the overall development plan and material planning gains compared with the advisory, albeit important, nature of regional planning guidance. The notion that we are giving the Secretary of State huge new powers is not the case; but, again, I suspect that that issue that will not die at the end of the clause stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister was speaking quickly. The problem with that is that words can sometimes escape. He used the words ''material planning gains''. I can see nothing in the Bill to do with planning gains or obligations—which there ought to be; it is one of the great lacunae of the Bill. As I understand it that is to be dealt with subsequently by circular. Will the Minister confirm that?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I can confirm the first point. Perhaps I should speak faster—the hon. Gentleman would then miss my words entirely. I said ''material planning gains'', but I meant to say ''material planning consideration''. Again, that is a legalese version—documents have to be considered, not just a particular point of view.

The only thing wrong with what the hon. Gentleman said about planning obligations being dealt with by circular and guidance rather than in the Bill is that I would quibble with the word ''subsequently''. It should happen a lot earlier; I hope that the circular can start to be put out for consultation before the two Houses of Parliament have finished with the Bill and before it is given Royal Assent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is an extremely important point. No one knows how long the Bill will be before both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister tell us a little more precisely when he expects the draft circular to be published and the consultation to begin?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If I were less than cautious—or even extremely optimistic—I would say that I shall do all that I can to ensure that the consultation process starts before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. Ministers are foolish if they rely on timetables determined by others, but we have made considerable progress. I said on Second Reading, and I told the Select Committee, that the planning obligation circular and the review of circular 6/98 on affordable housing—the two key elements for all that is done by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—would certainly be completed in the early part of this year. If that has changed, or if I have been unduly, foolishly, misguidedly or naively optimistic, I shall write to the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and important point. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was part of a portfolio of planning reforms, and that people should not only consider the Bill but should look beyond it to what we are trying to do by circular and guidance, and by other routes. Regional spatial strategies are crucial to all that we are trying to do. It is important that we should debate the clause, but I think that we have probably spent enough time on it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall comment on a couple of points. The Minister quarrelled with my assertion that

this is an exercise in one size fits all. He is fundamentally wrong, because that is exactly what it does. The artificial administrative region is the unit into which everything within it is forced. I used the example of the Thames river basin. It is much bigger than the artificial region, yet things have to be considered within those boundaries—the same boundaries are used to deal with agricultural, leisure, employment, transport and heritage considerations. One could go on and on, the system is one size fits all. Why in heaven's name should all those considerations conform to the same boundaries? That is what has bedevilled town and country planning and the structuring of local government during the past century—trying to use administrative boundaries to deal with matters that are geographical or spatial or related to land use.

One example of something that goes beyond the concept of the south-east is the Thames river basin. I am not being pedantic or petty about the units of little district or parish councils. A smaller example is Heathrow airport, part of which is in my constituency. The local considerations are made by the borough councils and, at a maximum level, the county councils. The regional context of Heathrow airport has nothing to do with the boundaries of the south-east, and even if it did, the overarching considerations for an employment and transport issue such as Heathrow are national anyway. Trying both to resolve the problems of the Thames and flooding and to ensure the future prosperity of Heathrow airport and my constituents within the same boundaries of an artificial region is the best definition of a one-size-fits-all process that I have ever encountered. For the Minister to say that it is the exact opposite is a load of nonsense, which he must know.

The Minister's other statement that cannot pass without comment was that he was proud to admit that the exercise went far beyond land-use planning. That was my starting point this morning, and I make no apologies for bringing the Committee back to the concept. What are we trying to do with the Bill? I thought that we were dealing with the planning process because, after all, the Bill is called the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. If it is what the Minister says, it should surely be the ''Social Engineering Bill''.

If we are to go beyond land use, where should we stop? Do we consider economic issues? Everyone would say that economic issues are planning issues? Do we consider social issues? Should we try to develop a policy for social cohesion in the south-east? Is that what the Minister is up to? That goes far beyond land-use planning. Does he want a south-east culture driven out of the Bill? Is his policy of development somehow part of a co-ordinated attempt to go far beyond what I understand to be planning? The cat has been let out of the bag: the Bill is part of a project of trying to create a different society—presumably based on a model of which the Minister approves—yet we thought that we were supporting the reform of the town and country planning system. I find that sad.

Furthermore, I see the Minister's definitions of regions, whether that refers to the south-east or

elsewhere, as total nonsense. When the debate started under a previous Government, I thought that it would be helpful to work out in which region my constituency was. I found that difficult, so I took the county of Surrey, which administers some services in my constituency. I gave up looking at the number of regions in which Surrey finds itself after the figure exceeded 200. Surrey is split for the purposes of spatial, development and land-use issues, and other issues that the Minister might want to include. In culture, for example, Surrey is split between many dioceses and circuits in the Christian Church, let alone other religions.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I hate to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman is widening the debate a little further than is appropriate. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a speedy conclusion.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was beginning to think that I was on thin ice. I will spare you the other 199 examples, Mr. Pike, but I used that one to demonstrate the dangers of the Minister's definition of regions as the artificial regional structure that is being imposed on us. Whatever example one uses, it is a one-size-fits-all exercise. My simple prediction is that, because of that, whatever the Government seek to achieve, whether it is social engineering or not, the exercise will fail—for which I am thankful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry to seek clarification on timetabling matters at this point, but I had originally been informed that we were to spend the first three sittings on part 1 and the next three sittings on part 2. There seems to be a discrepancy between the programme motion and the selection list on whether consideration of clauses 12 and 13 is to be concluded by the end of the third sitting. It appears that although clauses 12 and 13 are in part 2, they must be considered by the end of the third sitting. Would you please confirm whether that is the case, Mr. Pike?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Yes, they must be dealt with by 11.25 am, at which time the knife will fall. The selection list is wrong, whereas the programme motion as printed on the amendment paper is correct.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. As a matter of tidiness and good order, I would have preferred each section of the Bill to be considered in different sittings. If we are to have knives, it seems a good general principle that we should not deal with a section of one part of the Bill during consideration of a different part of the Bill—it is untidy. However, as we cannot alter the terms of the programme motion, that is how it will have to be.

In passing, I point out that clauses 12 and 13 are very important. They deal with the powers of county councils and what is to be included in the local development plan.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing me beyond my powers as Chairman. This morning, the Committee agreed the programme motion on the amendment paper, and I am bound by that procedure. If I as Chairman of this or any other Committee were to get an indication at any stage that a majority were in favour of a change to the programme motion and if I were to receive an indication from the Government that doing so was a realistic proposition, I would be prepared to suspend the sitting for a very short period to allow the Programming Sub-Committee to agree a new motion to put to the Committee. However, the proposition would have to be realistic.

The hon. Gentleman understands the situation as well as I do. If the Whips at any stage were to withdraw and then approach the Chair, the Chair would be reasonable. However, the Chair is bound by the decisions of the Committee and, indeed, of the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. That is a very helpful ruling. I suggest that we see how far we get in this sitting and, if necessary, the matter may be dealt with through the usual channels.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Your ruling is helpful. However, it is clear that we will not come close to dealing with clauses 12 and 13 between now and whatever time we finish this evening. We do not need to go outside the Room and have a chat about that. If it is of any help to the Government or if there has been some misunderstanding, I should say that I would be willing to engage in any conversation with anyone about the matter. I understand that the hon. Member for Ludlow is particularly exercised about it. The situation could easily have arisen from a misunderstanding of the words on a piece of paper rather than from the deliberate actions of anyone.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I hope that there is always reasonable liaison between the Whips. I shall be chairing Tuesday morning's as well as Tuesday afternoon's sitting and hope that we can make progress.

Members have asked me what time we will finish. Despite the Standing Orders for the House, the Committee could, in theory, sit right through the night if members of the Committee so wished. I am in the hands of the Committee and will accept a motion to make progress if the Government Whip so moves one. I will deem it reasonable to break for a meal if we go beyond a certain hour. I do not expect that to happen, but I am telling the Committee because several Members have asked me about it. The Chairman is not the one who decides when the sitting adjourns. Some Members are confusing what has changed by Standing Order with what has changed in the House. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Even if we were to do as you suggest—sit until the early hours of the morning—we would still not get as far as clauses 12 and 13. I do not know whether you wish to contemplate being here on Saturday and

Sunday as Chairman, but I suspect that the other members of the Committee do not.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I served on many Committees when I was a member of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman was in government, and we used to go on until the early hours of the morning. I hope that we will be sensible and reasonable today. We come now to clause 2.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. My point of order is completely different from those just raised. I notice that you kindly selected my amendments Nos. 186, 188, 184 and 185 under clause 2. However, amendment No. 188 relates to clause 4, amendment No. 184 refers to clause 10 and amendment No. 185 relates to clause 11.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is quite usual. Amendments to subsequent clauses are taken with the lead amendment where they deemed to be relevant to it. If, at the end of the debate, the hon. Gentleman indicates at the appropriate stage that he wishes to press the amendment to a vote, I will take note and call a Division. The amendment would have to be moved formally at that stage, but it will be debated in this group.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful.Clause 2 Regional planning bodies

Clause 2 - Regional planning bodies

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in

clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 49, in

clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsections (3), (4) and (5).

No. 5, in

clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

No. 50, in

clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

'(7) The Secretary of State may only give a direction once he has consulted all the authorities specified in section 4(2) as well as the Regional Development Agencies, Regional Chambers, Government Offices and members of the public. All representations must be made public prior to such a delegation being made.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

To refer to the points of order, we would have plenty of time to reach clauses 12 and 13 if we did not have the guillotine motion. Neither the Committee nor many outside organisations will appreciate our not reaching those clauses, especially since they relate to the transition of county councils. I want to register my protest that the Committee will not be doing its job if we cannot get to those clauses.

The clause to which the amendments relate is very important, as it is the clause under which the Secretary of State must designate the regional body. That is part of the transition from the current system of local plans and county structure plans to regional planning. I made it clear that the Opposition do not agree with regional planning or regional assemblies. However, the Government propose them and we must see whether they can work.

In my opening speech, I also made it clear that we could end up with an awful mishmash of planning in this country if we are not careful. If referendums are held and we vote for regional assemblies, some areas may have designated regional assemblies, some areas may have designated regional chambers while others have regional development agencies or government offices. The Government will have to consider the matter very carefully, because according to which body is designated, there will be a different emphasis on how it carries out its work. Some bodies will have directly elected members, while others have indirectly elected members. In the case of government offices, there will be no elected members at all.

Under the clause, once the Secretary of State has designated one of these designated bodies, if we may call them that, he can give a direction to withdraw recognition of that body if he does not like it. It would be draconian to withdraw recognition of that body having designated it, particularly if it is a regionally elected assembly. The amendments' purpose is to probe the Minister on the circumstances under which he would withdraw recognition.

Amendment No. 49 would omit subsections (3), (4) and (5). There is some sloppy drafting in subsections (4) and (5). On careful examination, those subsections are tautological because the opening words of subsection (4)—''Subsection (5) applies''—refer to subsection (5) before we even know what subsection (4) says. What a way to draft a Bill.

Subsection (4) should have started, ''If the Secretary of State'' and gone on to say what subsection (4) will do. It would then make sense for subsection (5) to begin:

''In such a case the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions''.

The drafting is poor. As such, not only must we probe when the Secretary of State may give a direction. Subsections (4) and (5) are so badly drafted that they should be withdrawn at least until they can be corrected. They add further confusion to the entire process.

The direction given may recognise the regional assembly or the chamber as the RPB. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point. In the kind and helpful guidance that he gave the Committee this morning, it says that in every case in which there was no elected regional assembly:

''although since the chamber is likely to be the RPB this seems unnecessary.''

That indicates that if the direction given does not recognise the elected regional assembly as the RPB it recognises the chamber. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that this afternoon. It is an important point, and I wish to know whether we have chambers up and running in every region. [Interruption.] The Minister is scowling. I can probably find the reference for him when I finish speaking because I hope that I have underlined it. It is on page 3 in the paragraph that starts clause 5.3. If I have misunderstood the document or it is incorrect, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point in his reply.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am inclined to agree with the reasoning behind the amendments. If the Government are to proceed with the Bill as drafted, it must include those subsections. They allow the Government to give the planning powers to an unelected body, from which the Government can take away those powers. I do not want the Government to give them to unelected bodies; I only want the Government to establish them when there is an elected regional assembly. However, if the Government are to do so, the Conservatives' amendment would prevent them from taking those planning powers away from a regional chamber, a regional development agency or, indeed, the Government office and giving them to the elected regional assembly, which might come along later. I could not support that, because the powers must be in the hands of elected people.

The clause and the proposed amendments highlight the fact that the Government are seriously intending to set up RPBs that are not elected. They are going to establish them in the regions before the elected regional assemblies are in existence.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Law Society suggested the amendments? They are probing amendments. As he knows, an amendment is often tabled, with no expectation of acceptance, as a means of probing the Government's intentions.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I accept that and I am glad that the amendments were tabled. It brings us to the Government's clear intention to hand powers to unelected bodies. Later on we shall have to reflect on powers moving up from county councils, but the direction in which they are moving is irrelevant: the key problem is the existence of unelected regional bodies with planning powers. Ultimately, we understand that the Government want elected regional assemblies in all regions, but debate continues about the current boundaries and regions likely to be successful. It seems unlikely that referendums would be won in regions such as the south-east, the south-west and perhaps the west midlands.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

If I did not say so, I alluded to it—the power in subsection (3) will allow the Secretary of State to revoke recognition from a regional assembly as well.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I agree entirely. The Government have wrapped themselves up in the problem. I understand why they need the power: if they have given it to an unelected body, they will subsequently need to take it away and give it to a elected body. However, if the provision remains law, a future Secretary of State could take the power away from an elected regional assembly if he did not like the colour of the politics in a certain region. That might not be the Government's intention—the Minister will, of course, say that it is not—but the problem remains that some decades hence, a Secretary of State could, by direction, take the power away from an elected regional assembly.

The Minister must reflect on how to escape that conundrum. My suggestion is not to grant the powers until elected regional assemblies have been set up, but I realise that he will not accept that. Perhaps he will find some other way to avoid having that open-ended power in the long run.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sorry not to have been present for the whole debate. I hope that I shall not go over ground that has already been covered.

Two other issues are relevant to the group of amendments, but first I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike, about amendment No. 50, which stipulates that the Secretary of State can give a direction, only

''once he has consulted all the authorities specified in section 4(2)''.

Section 4(2) sets out a list of authorities from (a) to (d). Having thought about problems over lunch, I tabled some amendments designed to change that list. At the moment they are not even starred amendments, but by Tuesday they will be relevant. I presume that they will be taken when we reach clause 4. I could explain the significance of amendment No. 50 and become involved in debating which bodies should have to be consulted. However, as the list in clause 4 is used on several occasions, and, as long as I can still discuss whether the list is correct when we reach clause 4, I will not need to trouble the Committee this afternoon. That is why I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. If an amendment to change the list is tabled and selected under clause 4, it will be perfectly permissible to debate it then.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is helpful. With the assurance that we can debate the matter later on, I shall not detain the Committee on amendment No. 50.

I shall speak to amendment No. 5. It is often held that the easiest sort of amendment to propose and talk about is one that changes the word ''may'' to ''must'', or vice versa, and I suspect that many such changes have been debated with tongue in cheek. On this occasion, however, such a change is important. We have debated whether it is right or proper that the Secretary of State should withdraw recognition or do other things. The Minister will comment on that. I will not repeat the arguments about why that is wrong—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said.

Let us assume, for the purposes of discussion, that the Government resist the amendments and that they will not listen to good common sense or wisdom coming from the Opposition Benches. The Secretary of State may, under the Bill, give a direction to withdraw recognition of a body and he could go on to do this, that and the other. Subsection (5) states that

''the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions''.

That is wrong—[Interruption.] Allow me to continue—this is an important issue. If such a structural arrangement is to be put in place, if that will be required to happen region by region, and if the Secretary of State is to be given the powers, it is inadequate to say that he may, if he feels like it, withdraw recognition of the responsible body. If it needs to be done, he must do it. The word ''must'' is, on this occasion, crucial.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I apologise for not having spotted amendments Nos. 5 and 50 in the group. Amendment No. 5 is essential, because chaos would ensue if the Secretary of State were to withdraw recognition of a body and not take on its functions. In such a case, there would be nothing in place whatsoever.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am trying to get the Minister to accept that point, because he argues that the Bill is necessary and that the new paraphernalia are essential, and he will have his way because he has the majority of Committee members on his side. I am simply trying to help him, although I do not know why. I am, on occasions, a generous soul and I am trying to show him a flaw in his argument and his procedures. He will get his Bill, but in it the Secretary of State will have discretion whether or not to bother. The Government machine seeks to control everyone and everything, so I am offering him a way to get the Secretary of State under control and require him to do what other bodies are being required to do.

We are trying to be helpful. That may be novel to the Minister, but politicians everywhere are pragmatic on occasion. Here is an opportunity for him to win recognition and to excel in improving the Government's Bill by ensuring that they have in place the mechanism that they set out to achieve.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I treat his kind offer with a degree of suspicion.

It is not appropriate to describe the amendment as a mishmash, or badly-drafted. I concede that what the hon. Member for Cotswold said about there being a clear and absolute role for probing amendments is true. Whether such amendments change things at Committee stage or subsequently in the process, they are often the most useful part of our deliberations. I do not have a problem with probing amendments, unless they are pursued to a vote or probed to death and then dropped.

Amendments Nos. 102, 49, 5 and 50 would alter the arrangements for withdrawing recognition from RPBs. Amendment No. 5 would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to exercise the RPB function when no RPB was recognised at the time. Amendment No. 102 would remove the Secretary of State's power to give a direction withdrawing recognition of a body as a regional planning body. Amendment No. 49 would remove that power along with the Secretary of State's power to exercise those functions of an RPB that he thinks appropriate if he has not recognised a body to act as the RPB, or if he withdraws recognition from an RPB and does not recognise another body in its place. Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult unitary, county and national park authorities, regional development agencies, regional chambers, Government offices and members of the public before giving a direction designating a body as a regional planning body.

It might help the Committee if I explain the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State is concerned to ensure that the bodies with responsibility for preparing revisions to draft RSS are appropriate

and representative of the range of interests in the region. In order to be designated as an RPB, certain criteria will have to be met. I shall return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about chambers shortly. The criteria currently envisaged, in line with the planning Green Paper, would be whether the RPB and the proposed steering group appointed to manage the preparation of the revised strategy are sufficiently representative; whether the RPB will consult a sufficiently broad range of regional stakeholders, including through focus groups or planning forums; whether the RPB will work sufficiently closely with all groups to ensure delivery of the strategy; and whether the RPB will be able to take a sufficiently strategic regional view, addressing difficult regional choices where necessary. PPG11 on regional planning already provides advice on most of the above and is to be further revised, as I said earlier. The Secretary of State will expect the RPB to demonstrate that it has had regard to that in applying for designation and can demonstrate that all four criteria are satisfied.

The provisions that amendments Nos. 102 and 49 would delete are there to deal with the possibility that a regional planning body ceases to meet the criteria, or, in some circumstances, that it fails to carry out its functions appropriately. The amendments would leave no means of maintaining the policy either on how representative an RPB should be or how inclusively it should carry out its work. That would not be acceptable.

The hon. Member for Ludlow made a point about future Secretaries of State taking power away from an elected regional assembly. A literal interpretation of the matter may—only may—be correct, but I should be astonished if by the time elected regional assemblies are up and running there were not a regions Bill of some description, which would be needed subsequent to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill and would, among other things, prescribe the provisions of the elected regional assembly in terms of the planning dimension, regional strategies and so on. It would not be appropriate to say that that is what will happen in future, nor would it be appropriate to consider where we are now in the context of what might happen in future. However, we shall return to the matter when we discuss the ongoing relationship between the regions and the local bodies.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is a literal interpretation of the position now and I accept that an appropriate Bill may be forthcoming. However, in case a minor point raised in this Committee has been forgotten by the time that Bill is introduced, might the Government be minded to consider changing the wording of this Bill on Report to make it clear that it is not intended that the Government should be able to withdraw the power when there is an elected regional assembly? I suggest that as a possibility.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Given our intended and declared policy in the Bill and elsewhere, our position is clear. The only circumstances in which that would not be duly modified would be if there were no subsequent regional assemblies Bill, in which case the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill would be redundant

because there would be no subsequent regional, democratic structure to be put in place. They are consequential on each other.

Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult certain local authorities and regional bodies before designating a regional planning body. I suspect that the amendment may result from a misunderstanding of how the process of designation will work. It will be for the regions to make proposals that meet the criteria for designation. It will be important for all the bodies mentioned in the amendment to be involved in discussions, but that should be done within a region and not by the Secretary of State, whose role is simply to assess compliance with the criteria and other guidance. Amendment No. 5 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to exercise those functions of a regional planning body that he thinks appropriate in the event that he has not recognised a body as the RPB for a region or he does not recognise any other body.

It is surprising that the hon. Member for Cotswold has proposed an amendment that would impose the very centralisation about which we heard so many complaints on Second Reading. Our position on regional spatial strategies is clear: while there is no directly elected regional assembly to take on the strategic planning role, it is right that the Secretary of State, who is directly accountable to Parliament, is ultimately responsible for issuing the regional spatial strategy. In that situation, we must achieve the right balance between that responsibility and securing and safeguarding regional input. I contend that the Bill strikes that balance.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I read amendment No. 50 as another probing amendment, which is the reverse of the Minister's argument. It is trying to elucidate what the Secretary of State will do if he acts under subsection (3), which is the key point. Will he just roll over in the morning, think that he does do not like the flavour of his toast and sign the direction, or will he openly and clearly discuss the matter with bodies before signing it?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall answer that point later.

If the RPB does not meet or ceases to meet the main criteria laid down, there needs to be a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, with the help of regional partners, can take forward work on revisions to the regional spatial strategy. The region involved will have to propose a body that is fit for purpose in the event of non-recognition. As soon as it does so, it can return to exercising the functions of a RPB.

The matter is not as clear cut or as black and white as was intimated during the debate on the amendment. The RPB will not simply be choked off and no longer recognised. The Secretary of State will take on some, but not all, of its functions, which he will clearly have to do in the interim. There will be close engagement with all regional partners to secure a new or revised RPB that meets the criteria and is fit for the purpose, and the new RPB will get on with the job as soon as

possible. The RPB will not starkly be choked off, and the Secretary of State will not rub his hands in glee and say, ''I am now the RPB for a particular region.''

As soon as the region concerned proposes a recognised body that is fit for purpose, that body can exercise the functions of a RPB. Even if there is some delay before a region devises arrangements that satisfy the criteria, it may not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to exercise any of the functions of the RPB, and much will depend on the circumstances and the length of any delay. That is why a duty on the Secretary of State would be inappropriate.

I should also point out that if the purpose of the amendment were to leave the Secretary of State with no choice but to take on all the functions of the RPB, the amendment would not succeed. That is because he would be left with a duty only to carry out those functions that he thought appropriate, and not all the RPB's functions. In any event, if that is the amendment's purpose, there are some functions of an RPB that it would simply not be sensible for the Secretary of State to exercise, such as preparing a report on the implementation of the RSS. One has to legislate for what ones hopes would be the worst-case scenario, but the Bill is not about taking power back to the centre with glee. It is about trying to create RPBs that are fit for purpose and remain committed to the criteria.

As I have been doing all day, I assure the hon. Member for Cotswold that there is absolutely no prospect of the Secretary of State issuing revisions to the RSS without going through the necessary steps to create a sound document that takes account of the views of the community and regional and local partners, which backs up my remarks about balance. To do otherwise would directly contradict our policy, and the Bill does not allow it. Under clause 6, any person will still be able to make representations on the draft and the Secretary of State, in deciding whether to hold an examination in public, must have regard to the extent of the consultation on the draft.

The hon. Gentleman raised one other point about regional chambers during the course of our deliberations on the amendment. We made it clear in the White Paper that the intention is that the regional chamber should be the RPB, subject to the criteria outlined elsewhere in the Bill being met. To answer his specific point, there are relevant regional chambers in all but three RPB areas. I cannot read the stuff in front of me—it is all gobbledegook—but, in essence, it means that the three regions that currently do not have chambers will have them by spring. All eight regions will have chambers by then and they are the nascent and subsequent RPBs. I shall now read my briefing notes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister needs time to read his notes. I am not sure that he was not reading his brief on the next clause about the revision of RSSs. I was becoming confused. Will he concentrate on the purport of our amendment? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State withdraw recognition of a regionally designated body?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have made that clear. Recognition of a regionally designated body would be withdrawn if it was outwith or developed outside the four criteria set out in the planning Green Paper and was determined as not fit for purpose. It is as simple as that. Such matters are laid out clearly in the Green Paper. Such action would not be taken lightly or for a length of time. As for suspending RPBs or derecognising them for a length of time, there would have to be another sweep of powers in the Bill governing what the Secretary of State can or cannot do in the interim.

Even if derecognition took place, work would be undertaken closely with regional partners to reach the stage at which an RPB could be formed to meet the criteria and to make clear its purpose so that it, rather than the Secretary of State, could do its job in the regions. Otherwise, the Secretary of State will explore why the RPB did not meet the criteria and will decide what changes could be made to ensure that it meets them. To return to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, three of the eight areas do not have chambers, but will do so by the spring—I have just remembered that I have already made that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley? What consultation will take place and with whom before the Secretary of State issues such a revocation under the clause?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Unless I am mistaken, the short answer is none. It is clearly up the Secretary of State to determine whether the criteria are met and whether the RPB continues to be fit for purpose. I am not sure in what circumstances the Secretary of State will write a letter to each regional stakeholder asking whether it still regards the RPB as meeting the full criteria and is it still fit for purpose, and to give him a bell if it is not, but perhaps he will do so every three months.

Consultation, interaction and participation with all regional partners involved at the regional planning body level would happen only subsequent to derecognition to deal with the problems caused by the absence of fulfilment of the criteria or fitness for purpose, so that we can reach the stage at which the RPB is up and running, fit for purpose and can move on. There is nothing malign or sinister about that. Whether the RPB continues to be fit for purpose or meets the criteria will be subject to ongoing assessment and initial recognition. If subsequent worries emerge, they emerge.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

The Minister is saying that if the Secretary of State suddenly decides that he does not like the way in which an authority is performing and that it is not fulfilling the requirements, he will consult after he has made such a decision, not before. There will be no discussion with the relevant bodies that are affected by the decision. To use an antipodean phrase, the Secretary of state will simply pull the plug and then start consulting.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have been at this subject all day, I shall not be pedantic and quibble about antipodean roots of

''pulling the plug'', although I suspect that it was in use here before the antipodeans got hold of it. What the hon. Gentleman suggests will not happen. It sounds as though the Secretary of State will act in a malign manner, as though if he got up in a bad mood, he would say, ''Who should I deregonise or have a go at today?''

Clear criteria will be laid down. Everyone will be more than aware of those criteria. Everyone who is party to the feast will have been party to the whole recognition process and will know what goes into the recognition of a regional planning body. It will be clear to all concerned if the criteria specific to the regional planning powers and the role of an RSS are no longer being met and whether the RPB is fit for its purpose. The provision is not intended to be used maliciously or capriciously and it will not be used in that way. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

When giving the direction, will the reasons for withdrawal be given publicly?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In terms of absolute clarity and certainty in my mind, I do not know the answer, but when I find out I shall let the hon. Gentleman know. It may be that that will be explored in regulations. I hope that the answer to his question is yes, and if it is not, I shall certainly get back to him.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister is being generous, which is helpful to the Committee, and I congratulate him on that.

The Minister said that he would not consult before a notice was issued for revocation. The nuclear option of withdrawal of recognition is a serious step and I should have thought that, in practice, any responsible Secretary of State would move heaven and earth to avoid a situation in which that was necessary. The maximum consultation, not only with the recognised regional body, but with Government offices, RDAs and other constituent tier authorities, would be highly desirable, if not necessary. Could the Minister respond to the scenario I described and my probing and explain how he sees the provision operating?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I will, but looking behind me rather than at the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that I have had a blinding flash of inspiration. I can now say without fear or favour that the answer to his question about whether the reasons for revocation would be published is yes.

Unreasonable use of derecognition could be subject to judicial review. We will not derecognise arbitrarily or in a vacuum. There is bound to be discussion, but ultimately the decision will be for the Secretary of State. I cannot foresee a situation in which there will not, at least informally, be the to-ing and fro-ing that the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested. He was not right this morning, but he is right this afternoon: derecognition is a nuclear option. It is a sledgehammer that would not be used regularly, but I contend—I hope that the Committee agrees—that it needs to be in the Bill because we must foresee as many circumstances as possible. Whether that to-ing and fro-ing would be formal when derecognising or revoking recognition from such a significant public

body will be explored further before regulations and guidance are published, as will the reasons for it. None the less, that does not affect the notion that the option should be in the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have had a full discussion on this group of amendments. Again, I do not entirely agree with the Minister's explanation, particularly on amendment No. 5. If recognition is withdrawn from a regional planning body, the Secretary of State will have to take over some of its functions. The Government need to think more about that and, in particular, about amendment No. 5.

We have probed the matter in depth and to enable us to make progress I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in

clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

'(7) In marine areas, the Secretary of State shall exercise such of the functions of the RPB as he thinks appropriate'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.188, in

clause 4, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

'(e) Any competent marine authority'.

Amendment No.184, in

clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end insert—

'(j) defining regions within the marine area for the purposes of this part'.

Amendment No.185, in

clause 11, page 6, line 26, leave out from first 'region' to end of line 27 and insert—

'—

(a) is a region (except London) specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c.45); or

(b) any part of the marine area.'.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Some members of the Committee may wonder where Chipping Barnet, which I have the privilege of representing, is. I announced earlier this week that I would not be seeking re-election—[Hon. Members: ''Shame!''] Many Members seem to think that Chipping Barnet nestles easily in the Cotswolds; in fact, it sits somewhat uncomfortably in north London. Some might ask why the Member for landlocked Chipping Barnet is moving amendments relating to marine areas. The answer is simple: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a prestigious and much-respected body, and in particular, its parliamentary officer, Sally Webber, got in touch with me and begat the four amendments that I have the privilege of moving. I shall do so as crisply as I can.

The purpose of amendment No. 186 is to make the Secretary of State the regional planning body for marine areas. The amendment would require him to exercise the functions of a regional planning body ''as

he thinks appropriate''. Members will know that clause 2 allows for regional planning bodies to be defined by the Secretary of State and that clause 3 requires regional planning bodies to keep the regional spatial strategy under review and to monitor and report on its implementation.

There is currently no one body with planning responsibilities in the marine environment. In the last Session, I was fortunate enough to steer through a private Member's Bill that transferred responsibility for marine archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage. However, a diverse group of institutions, which I will mention later, have responsibilities in relation to the marine environment. We do not propose to remove any powers from existing marine-competent authorities. However, the amendment would make the Secretary of State the RPB for marine areas and would require him to keep under review and monitor any RSS that he develops under clause 1.

Amendment No. 184 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that define regions within the marine environment for the purposes of part 1, so that RSSs, under clause 1, may be developed. The regions for which RSSs are to be developed would include marine areas by virtue of the proposed amendment to clause 11. However, the amendment to clause 11 just allows for regions within marine areas; it does not specify the boundaries of the marine regions, how big they are, or where they are.

We should remember the arguments between the Scottish nationalists and—perhaps—the rest of Britain, in which people asked, ''Whose oil is it?'' Such answers depend on the line marking the boundary between regions and how its angle in relation to the coast is defined. It could be quite a thorny problem. Clause 10 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations for certain purposes in relation to persons exercising functions under part 1. Amendment No. 184 would allow the Secretary of State to exercise that power to define marine regions as appropriate through regulations. When marine regions have been defined, RSSs for each marine region can be developed.

Amendment No. 185 refers to clause 11 and defines regions for the purposes of part 1 as including any area of the marine environment. For the purposes of part 1, clause 11 refers to schedule 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 for definitions of regions. For example—I am perhaps looking rather quizzically at the back of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—the eastern region is defined as the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and the non-metropolitan districts of Luton, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. Well, we have our views about that. Incidentally, if one asks northerners to describe the south-east, they instinctively say, ''London and the counties surrounding it.'' Of course, under the regional structure that we have developed, Greater London is not part of the south-east. The amendment would allow a region to include any part of a marine area, but would not define the marine regions. That is left to the proposed

amendment to clause 10, which would allow the marine regions to be defined by regulation. Marine areas would be defined through an amendment to clause 72.

Amendment No. 188 would allow the Secretary of State, as the regional planning body for marine areas by virtue of the amendment to clause 2, to make arrangements for other competent marine authorities to discharge his functions. That is crucial because clause 4 allows a regional planning body to seek the assistance of local authorities, as defined in clause 4(2), to carry out any of its functions.

The amendment to clause 2 would make the Secretary of State the regional planning body for marine areas. However, the authorities listed in clause 2(4) have few, if any, functions that are relevant to a marine environment. The amendment would increase the scope of the authorities of which assistance might be sought to include marine competent authorities. They would be defined in an amendment to clause 72, which is titled ''Interpretation'', and would include Government Departments and competent authorities such as English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Council for Wales, sea fisheries committees and harbour authorities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I wonder whether I might help my hon. Friend and cite an example of the new port that is being developed on the boundaries of Southampton and the New Forest. That is a typical example of a situation in which two regions might be crossed. It would be helpful to have a designated marine area so that one knew the precise area in which the development was taking place.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as am I.

My unusual eloquence is due to the fact that I have been speaking closely to a briefing by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I hope that the Minister, with his usual generosity, will be able to accept the amendments. I can take punishment but I do not want the RSPB's wrath to descend on the Minister. I hope that he will give a fair wind to the eminently sensible amendments.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have the greatest respect for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; I am sure that we all have. If each political party represented in this Room could maintain and expand its membership as the RSPB has, the parties would be healthier than they are at present.

I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—he is a near neighbour; we have but Hendon between us—has concerns about the marine dimension of our national life. I know that because I was the private Member's Bill Whip in a previous incarnation when he steered his Bill on marine archaeology through the House, and I know that he had great interest in the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), which died a death in the place that has red carpets rather than green. I take the thrust of the amendments seriously.

At the risk of arousing the wrath of the RSPB, I contend that the amendments and related ones to be considered later are strictly unnecessary. I shall come later to further reasons. The Secretary of State or other Ministers already have responsibility for controlling the full range of offshore development activities, including oil and gas exploration and production, offshore electricity generation, any other offshore developments affecting structures on the sea bed, coastal protection and harbour management including navigational dredging, ports and harbour development, developments relating to navigation and defence and, shortly to be enacted, offshore marine mineral dredging.

In the exercise of those various responsibilities, the responsible Secretaries of State and Ministers must have regard to environmental matters, not least—no red rags, please—to conform with the requirements of European directives on environmental impact assessment and habitats. It would cut across those responsibilities to give the Secretary of State with responsibility for land use planning an overarching responsibility for environmental matters offshore, and it is impractical to expect that such work could be done properly without involving the regional planning bodies and individual local authorities.

The present range of offshore consenting regimes, except that for oil and gas, is being reviewed by an official group reporting to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker. It is expected to report later this year. The review was announced last May at the launch of the marine stewardship report. I shall certainly find out more about the timetable, content and substance of that review, and when it is to report, and shall let the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and, through him, the millions of RSPB members, know my findings.

The review is examining a range of complex and contentious issues, including the feasibility of transferring some or all of the consenting powers from Ministers to local government, which is relevant to the amendment. That would imply a connection with the new regional spatial planning system. That would raise some complex legal issues and major matters of local government finance for the authorities and regions concerned. Additional costs to regional bodies and local authorities in framing plans for marine environmental protection would have to be met from other environmental programmes. It is not yet clear whether creating a patchwork of regional and local authority controls over marine areas would be the best means of replacing present unified national control. As I said, I shall further inform the Committee on that subject of the review. Other options, perhaps involving the rationalisation of some or all of the existing national regimes, might be more effective.

Another initiative of which the amendments take no account is the current review in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of marine nature conservation, which is concerned directly with the issues that the amendments intend to address. It would be premature to anticipate the work in hand to improve the effectiveness of the management of the

marine environment by creating yet another set of statutory powers to cut across existing ones. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I ask the Committee to reject it, especially in the context of the review being undertaken by my right hon. and noble Friend and what is going on at DEFRA. If I have anything of substance to report on either process before deliberations in the Commons on the Bill conclude, I shall get back to him. I take the marine environment and the issues surrounding it very seriously.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has mentioned various offshore activities that are increasing, such as gas and minerals extraction, and I would add wind farms. We should have a mechanism so that the regional planning bodies can have an input into such developments, which are likely to have a considerable economic and environmental impact on their areas. That is why the RSPB is so concerned about them. We must ensure that there are additional safeguards so that local people, through the RPBs, can have some say on those developments. Will the Minister write to the Committee on the sort of input that the RPBs could have on such developments?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall be more than happy to do that, but only if it does not pre-empt the outcome of Lord Rooker's review. As I have said, part of his focus when examining many of the consenting regimes is to see whether a multifaceted national system, with a focus on the marine environment as a whole, is the most appropriate and efficacious way forward, or whether breaking down some of those elements at regional or sub-regional level is more appropriate.

Initially, let us say that I shall find out more details of the review, its substance and its timetable and

return to the Committee with them. It will then be for Committee members to decide how they want to take that information forward, in conjunction with the RSPB or otherwise. That would be appropriate. These are serious matters; we can perhaps explore how our actions in Committee best dovetail with the review and DEFRA's work on marine conservation by the time that the House has finished discussing the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful for the tone and tenor of the Minister's reply. I appreciate it very much, but should like to make two quick points.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is on to something with his point about the boundaries of the marine areas, mentioning the Southampton and New Forest area. That could be crucial. Secondly, I understand that the powers of the local authority or, in this case, regional planning authority go only—I can never remember exactly the right phrase—to the mean water level of low or high tide. I think that the Crown owns the beaches and shores. Perhaps that is a technical problem, but it is a legal one. There may be slightly more impetus behind the amendments that the RSPB have requested because of those legal factors.

I am grateful to the Minister for promising to look into the matter and keep the Committee informed. With the safeguard of discussion on Report still to come, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 14 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.