Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2003.

Standing Committee G

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. One of the joys of getting up at this unearthly hour, is that some of us have been up for many hours already to prepare to debate amendments. However, yet again we have a problem in that housekeeping functions are not keeping up to the speed of the Committee. I know that we work at lightning speed, but as yet we do not have Hansard for our previous sittings. I do not see how the Committee can function properly until we have seen a record of what happened in those sittings. I seek your guidance as to whether the Committee can be postponed until such time as we can obtain copies of Hansard. I do not see how we can perform our function otherwise.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is not a matter for the Chair, but I will ensure that those comments are passed on. I am told that Hansard should be available some time today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. With great respect, I do not think that that is good enough. I simply do not know how we are expected to function if we do not have a record of what happened in the previous sittings. I ask again whether the Committee can be postponed until we can obtain copies of Hansard.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I have no power to do that. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate people. I have no power to take the motion that he is moving.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I seek your guidance and clarification. As of yesterday, we did not have a consolidated document on all the amendments. The somewhat arcane numbering system for our amendments makes it difficult enough to follow them in any case, but when they appear on three different pieces of paper—for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week—matters are even worse. How many times a week does that consolidated document come out? I understand that it used to appear every day, but that no longer appears to be the case.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That point is incorrect. The consolidated list is published on each day on which the Committee sits, which means it is published twice a week. On other days, additional lists are printed that show the additional motions and amendments tabled since the previous meeting.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I do not want to be abstruse, and I know that the Committee wants to get on. I am not trying to waste time, but I want to get the mechanics right. We had a separate list on Thursday and Friday. I cannot

understand why Friday's list did not consolidate Thursday's amendments as well.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The point is that the lists are published on the basis that they are not consolidated until they have to be prepared for the Committee sitting. That procedure has always applied. Whatever Committee you sit on, you will pick up several lists until the day of the sitting.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

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

The programming motion was greeted with unusual acclamation and unanimity in the programming sub-

committee. I should put my hand up and say mea culpa for the need for it, because I had a significant input to the original programming motion. The notion that clauses 12 and 13 and the start of part 2 should be incorporated with prior deliberations was an oversight that we have duly corrected. I commend the motion to the Committee.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It would be churlish of us not to thank the usual channels for facilitating this opportunity to do things in a different way, and I thank the Minister for saying that he might have had a hand in what happened. While on my feet, I cannot miss the opportunity to say that the advice that we have always given and the objections that we have always raised to the inclusion of knives in the debate of a Bill have been proved to be correct. Had we been working our way sensibly through this one, the Minister's correction would not have been necessary, and my intervention need not have taken place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 - Regional planning bodies

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

You have to rise quickly if you wish to speak in my Committees, Mr. Clifton-Brown.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I can see that you work very quickly, Mr. Pike. Even at this time of the morning, you are extremely sharp.

Clause 2 is one of the Bill's most important as it sets up the duties and functions of a regional planning body. We made progress last week, in that we learned from the Minister that the recognised bodies are, in the absence of elected regional assemblies, to be the regional chambers. Of the eight regions, three are not yet up and running, but they will be by the spring, in the words of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I hope that I have quoted him correctly; if not, he will no doubt put the record straight. That was one of the most important revelations of our two sittings last week, and it was very welcome. It would be useful to have the Hansard before me, so that I could check the accuracy of my quotation, but I must rely on my memory instead.

I am slightly concerned about the explanatory notes, which make it clear that, in itself, a change of membership of the recognised regional planning body would not render it invalid. What does the Minister understand by that? To take the most extreme example, if the regional planning body were to contract out all its functions, would that in itself render it derecognised? That point needs to be clarified.

Having said that, I must say that the Committee has examined the clause in huge detail and made progress.

We have much to do today, so in order that we may continue to make progress, I shall let the Minister reply.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that clause 2 is fundamental to the development of the Bill. Under subsection (2), permission is given to develop subsequent regulations and criteria for membership of the regional planning body, as we discussed last week. The criteria currently envisaged for the membership or establishment of RPBs, against which they will be judged and duly recognised, consist, as outlined in the Green Paper, of whether the RPB and the steering groups that are proposed to manage 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.

Under clause 2(6), if the membership of the body changes—for example, if someone leaves for whatever reason and someone else joins—there is no need to re-recognise or, indeed, derecognise the body. As I understand it, a simple change of membership is permitted in the spirit of what the RPB should consist of and in the context of the criteria in the Green Paper.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Clause 2(6) states:

''A change in the membership of a body which is not incorporated does not—''

these are the important words—

''(by itself) affect the validity of the recognition of the body.''

In what circumstances does the Minister envisage that a body will be so transformed by a change in membership that he would have to consider derecognising it?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That would be the case if the transformation of the membership meant that the regional planning body fell outside the criteria that we have laid down, indicatively for now, in the planning Green Paper, which will be developed more substantively by circular or regulation. Those criteria will be clearly laid down. One could envisage cases in which an additional or replacement member substantially transformed the body so that it was no longer representative of the region or the other criteria outlined. The change in membership, and whether it is transformative, will be dealt with in the context of the criteria as laid down. Clearly if the change is simple, involving someone from the same representative body moving to the RPB, that will make no difference to the body's representativeness and ability to carry out its work. It would be foolish if every such straightforward change of membership had to be recognised by the Secretary of State.

Given that I gave the Committee a route map last week of the parts of each clause that will give rise to regulation or other secondary activity, I shall try in each stand part debate to refer back to that to let Members know where there will be subsequent

regulation. With that generosity of spirit in mind, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - RPB: general functions

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No.6, in

clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out 'may be expected to'.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has asked me to move an amendment, which is a very risky manoeuvre and one that he may come to regret. I hope not; I think that I understand what is required of me, but I shall hear from him afterwards if I do not.

The amendment seeks to remove the words ''may be expected to'' from clause 3(2), so that it would read ''The RPB must keep under review the matters which affect'' rather than

''the matters which may be expected to affect'',

as it does at present. I think that the words ''may be expected to'' are either unnecessary or make the provision far too wide. The Committee can take its pick of which argument it prefers.

So far as I can see, something either affects a matter that concerns the RPB or it does not. To say that it may or may not affect it is unnecessary. I accept that the RPB must keep under review ''matters which . . . affect'' such concerns. That makes sense to me, and, I hope, to the entire Committee. It should not be difficult to know what matters do or do not have an effect. On the one hand, then, the argument is that the words ''may be expected to'' are quite unnecessary, and I should be interested to know why the Minister thinks that they add something.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that those words give planning bodies the right simply to announce, ''We think this might affect us, so we shall poke our nose into it''. I should be opposed to that. Who is to say whether such a matter will or will not have an effect? If someone on a planning body makes the subjective assessment that in their view, at some stage in the future, it may affect that body, then they will be able to become involved, interfere and take their remit as wide as they choose.

The Bill—this returns us to previous arguments—is about land use and town and country planning, not social engineering. I see ''may be expected to'' as another opportunity for somebody to get up to mischief, should he or she so wish, and to say that they will take their remit as wide as they like to interfere in whatever they like, dragging into that remit all sorts of matters that do not have any direct bearing on land use planning.

There are therefore two possible reasons for the amendment: either the words that it would delete are unnecessary, or they go too far. I invite the Committee to take its pick, but whichever reason appeals to them, I trust that they will vote for the amendment.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne

(Mr. Wilshire) says. Whatever disagreement there may be about the contents of any Bill, let alone this one, I am sure that we are united in our duty to put on the statute book a measure that is unambiguous, exact and, so far as we can achieve it, precise. I feel that the phrase ''may be expected to'' contradicts that aim. Like my hon. Friend, I wonder whether it is necessary. I shall listen to the Minister's reply with interest, but if he does think it necessary, I wonder whether it is too wide-sweeping.

That imprecise phrase has been echoed in the two clauses that we have previously examined. We discussed the phrase ''however expressed'' during our consideration of clause 1(2). Incidentally, the Minister will remember that I asked him last Thursday whether that has been included in any previous legislation.

Clause 1(4) includes the phrase ''so much of''. When we examined clause 2(5), we discussed whether it should include ''may'' or ''must''. I felt that it should be ''must'' because the Bill must be precise. No doubt we shall discuss other examples of such language. In all sincerity, I ask the Minister whether it is necessary to include the phrase ''may be expected to''.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is, I am afraid, another example of sloppy drafting. Clause 3(2) states:

''The RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect''.

The question is, ''may be expected'' by whom? Is it the RPB? Is it the man on the Clapham omnibus? Is it a planning QC? Who might it be expected to be and what level of knowledge will that person have? My hon. Friends are on to a good point. We need the Minister to clarify what clause 3(2) means.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

To the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), may I say that the exposition about legal precedent or otherwise is on its way for clause 1? I suspect that we are chasing shadows because, as the hon. Gentleman will find out shortly, I can give him legal precedent for clause 3 without having to write to him. Amendment No. 6 would require the regional planning body to keep under review matters that affect development in its region, or any part of its region, and the planning of that development. The Bill confines that duty to matters that may be expected subsequently to affect the development of an RPB's planning.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from amendment No. 6. If an RPB thinks that a matter affects the development of its region, it must keep it under review. That is not a licence to interfere with other bodies, but it is putting that duty on a statutory footing for the RPB. By using the term ''may be expected'', the RPB must also look ahead to see whether it can predict that future matters will affect development and must therefore keep them under review. Would that the world were simplistic and straightforward enough clearly to summarise in black and white every single possible matter that might affect the future of an RPB and its work, but life is not like that. In practice, an RPB will need to establish arrangements for keeping under review a range of matters, including economic development,

regeneration, housing and transport, to ensure that it has robust and comprehensive information.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Spelthorne is partly right and, following on from last Thursday, will be consistent in his detestation of anything that nudges things beyond the parameters of a simply focused land use function in the planning system, which is exactly what clause 3 is about. Clause 3 goes to the heart of spatial strategy, which is distinct in being more comprehensive than a structure plan or a unitary development. However good a job each RPB is doing, some circumstances affecting a region and its development will become clear only with hindsight. Similarly, circumstances that appear likely to affect a region's development may, in hindsight, not have done so.

The duty in clause 3(2) is modelled on—in essence, lifted from—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which has stood the test of time. Amendment No. 6 would leave the RPB open to the risk of failing to discharge a statutory duty simply because what it expected to affect a region's development or the planning of that development did not do so.

Clause 3 provides the RPB with the tools, in the form of clear and sensible statutory duties, to do its job. The amendment would put every RPB at risk of failing to carry out its review functions properly. It is not acceptable, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

I said at the beginning that the amendment is chasing shadows. There is nothing sinister, untoward or devious about the clause, which is rooted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I would not go so far as to say that the Bill is an attempt at social engineering, but if, like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, one is entirely against including anything other than land use, it would be entirely legitimate to oppose the clause root and branch—legitimate, but entirely wrong.

The clause is part and parcel of the development of spatial strategies rather than just narrowly defined land use and development control plans. Such strategies are at the heart of the Bill and at the heart of the comprehensive and integrated planning system that the country needs for the future.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Over the weekend, being conscious that there are courses for speed reading, I tried to find one for speed listening, because I wanted to do justice to the Minister's comments. I am beginning to understand that the Government Whips Office decides how many sittings are necessary on the basis of which Minister is taking the lead and how quickly he or she will get through the briefs that are prepared by civil servants. However, I caught the drift of what the Minister said.

The Minister said that I was absolutely right—I knew that, because I am always absolutely right. However, when a Labour Minister admits it, begin to doubt my judgment, and I have had to think carefully

about that comment. He asked me to be consistent. I am always consistent, as he will discover, except when it suits my purpose not to be. I believe that he will not be disappointed on this occasion.

The Minister said that there is a legal precedent and cited the 1990 Act. I am not a lawyer and am not, therefore, as impressed by precedent as lawyers are. I always regard the argument that we have done something before as similar to the argument about beating one's wife—that if it has been done before, it is legitimate to do it again. I do not agree with that one, either. The provision dealt with in the amendment is either necessary, or it is not. What might have been necessary in 1990 is of little interest to us now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold was absolutely right to ask, ''expected by whom?'' If it is the experts, I am worried—I should far prefer it to be the person on the Clapham omnibus.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The phrase ''expected by whom'' refers initially to any reasonable person—I am sure that reasonable people ride the Clapham omnibus—but ultimately to the courts for legal interpretation.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The phrase ''any reasonable person'' could keep us going for the rest of the morning, but I shall resist the temptation to pursue it further.

The only comment made by the Minister that worried me deeply was his announcement that there was nothing devious or sinister about the wording. With the greatest respect, I must note that all members of the Committee are politicians, and when a politician asserts that there is nothing devious or sinister about what he is doing, it is usually an admission that there probably is.

On this occasion, however, I have listened carefully and caught all the words. We now have enough in Hansard, if it ever appears, to satisfy people in the future about what the Government intended. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 140, in

clause 3, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

'(2A) The RPB must prepare and implement a statement of community involvement.'

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 59, in

clause 7, page 4, line 25, at end insert—

'The final adopted version of the RSS must contain a statement of the extent of community involvement.'

No. 37, in

clause 10, page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (2)(c).

No. 116, in

clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

'(2A) Before preparing a draft revision of the RSS the RPB must set out proposals to ensure appropriate public consultation on the contents of the RSS in accordance with such guidance as is specified by the Secretary of State.'

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Amendment No. 140 is intended to create the requirement for a statement of community involvement at regional level that the Bill requires at local level. Perhaps the Government accidentally

omitted that. I am sure that they meant to ensure that regional planning was as publicly accountable as local planning. There is little justification for arguing that there should be less regional accountability, particularly as the bodies concerned will initially be unelected and, in some regions, may remain so rather longer than we would wish. The need for a statement of community involvement is even greater in the case of an unelected RPB. If there is to be little public scrutiny or ability to influence decisions at regional level, we shall be moving away from having a greater public say, especially as some powers will rise up from county councils, which are elected and undergo scrutiny at present.

Amendment No. 140 is intended to let the Government add something that I am sure they meant to include. The Minister will probably say that I am putting it in the wrong place and that the amendment is drafted wrongly, but I find it hard to believe that the Government did not mean to include a statement of community involvement at regional level. Amendments Nos. 59 and 116 assist in correcting the omission.

I am somewhat worried by amendment No. 37, which would remove the Secretary of State's powers—I say that as someone who tried to remove all his powers earlier—to determine

''the nature and extent of consultation with and participation by the public in anything done under this Part''.

A regional body might issue a statement of community involvement that simply stated that it would not consult the public. In those circumstances, I would like the Secretary of State to have sufficient reserve powers to be able to step in and say that there are minimum levels for those statements.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold can speak for himself, but my reading of the amendments is that if amendment No. 59 were accepted, amendment No. 37 would be unnecessary. That amendment must not be read on its own, but in conjunction with our other two amendments.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Clause 10(2)(c) enables the Secretary to make regulations to make provisions as to

''the nature and extent of consultation''.

Amendment No. 59 follows on from amendment No. 140 in the sense of insisting that there should be a statement of community involvement. It does not set out minimum levels. Although I do not like the Secretary of State to have too many powers, in this instance removing the power would cause a problem if a regional chamber decided that its statement of community involvement should state that it would have very little of it. If the Government cannot accept my wording, I hope that they will accept the need for a statement of community involvement at a regional level. I am sure that that is what they intended, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I support the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). His amendment is very much in line with our amendments Nos. 59 and 116, as he pointed out. Amendment No. 37 has somewhat the opposite effect and was intended to be a probing

amendment. In the event that the Government will not accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment and my other amendments, amendment No. 37 presents the reverse case and shows the absurdity of not including the community involvement element. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that argument.

I believe that the Minister has commissioned the consultants Llewelyn-Davies to advise on the framework for community involvement, as it stands in clause 17(1), (2) and (3). Clause 17 refers to the community involvement element that will be required in drawing up local development documents. Will the Minister confirm whether he has commissioned consultants? If he has, will he tell us when they will report and when Mr. Pike and the Committee will be able to see their conclusions so that we can discuss that area of the Bill in an informed way?

It is extraordinary that the Bill includes an element of community involvement in drawing up LDDs, which is the local authority part of the planning process, yet does not lay down any community involvement in relation to the regional spatial strategy, which is the higher process. The hon. Member for Ludlow made the point that that seems somewhat inconsistent. The Conservatives think that there should be some public involvement, and the amendments are intended to put that obligation in the Bill. Under clause 6(2), any person ''may make representations'' to the Secretary of State on the draft provision of the RSS. Under clause 6(3), the Secretary of State

''may arrange for an examination in public'',

but does not have to. That is not sufficiently positive. There should be an examination in public.

Clause 8(2)(a) makes it clear that if an examination takes place, the Secretary of State must consider the chairman's representations. The Secretary of State will then publish his revision. However, if the Secretary of State decides that no examination is to be held, there is effectively no community involvement in drawing up the RSS. That seems to be a lacuna in the Bill. After all, under clause 17, there must be a statement of community involvement when drawing up LDDs, so it is inconsistent not to have one when drawing up RSSs.

The catalogue of resentment will grow if the public perceive that they are being dictated to by a remote RSS adopted by a chamber composed wholly of indirectly elected members. Indeed, they may not even have an indirectly elected member representing their area because the numbers involved are such that a whole county council area might not have an indirectly elected member in the chamber. Resentment may grow to such an extent that it will start to discredit the whole of the Government's regional agenda. A lot of people will think that it is intolerable for an unelected regional chamber to hand down house-building targets without authority or without members of the public in the area having an automatic right of representation as to what is to be included in the RSS.

As we will find out, a local authority must consider what is handed down to it by the RSS when drawing up the local development framework. If the RSS is drawn up with no public involvement, there will be

resentment. There is a democratic deficit here, and I urge the Minister to consider seriously whether the Bill can include some more definite power, so that there will be community involvement in drawing up the RSS.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

This is turning into something of a curious morning. I had not been here more than a few minutes before a Minister praised me for being absolutely right; I now find myself having to say that I agree with a Liberal Democrat, so the morning has become even more curious. What is even more curious is that I have been maligned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. When my amendments are described as probing, it usually means that my Front-Bench colleagues do not approve of them. This has been a curious morning so far, and I am full of anticipation for what else may happen by 11.25 am.

My amendment No. 37—if I can be so bold as to say that it is mine, and therefore distance the responsibility from my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold—is not what it appears to be. It conforms with the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Ludlow in that I have tabled it for a straightforward reason. It may appear that the aim of removing the words

''the nature and extent of consultation''

is to make consultation unnecessary. However, I was concerned about the fact that the Bill says:

''The regulations may in particular make provision as to . . . the nature and extent of consultation''.

If the Secretary of State is making regulations, he may specify the extent of the consultation, which could be a good thing. However, apart from the Minister, who is neither devious nor sinister, I suspect all Labour Governments of being devious and sinister, and giving the Secretary of State the power to define the extent of consultations will allow him to limit consultation. He could say, ''I am prepared to allow consultation thus far, but no further.'' That worries me, but my amendment is probing, and if the Minister can reassure me that clause 10(2)(c) is not intended to enable the Government to restrict consultation, I will be happy not to move it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It might help if the Minister indicated that it would be the Secretary of State's intention to state the minimum nature and extent of consultation. I am speaking with the benefit of hindsight, but I think that the missing word is ''minimum''. If the Minister agreed with that, many Members would agree with him. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the Secretary of State could restrict the nature and extent of the consultation, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government's intention is to define the minimum consultation, and that they will introduce an amendment later.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hope that the Minister does that, because if he put on record that the purpose of the subsection is to enable the Secretary of State to tell a planning body that its consultation has been

inadequate and that it should do more, I would support him. However, we need an assurance or a Government amendment that says that the Secretary of State may not order a planning body to carry out less consultation than it set out to carry out in the first place. That is my concern, and I hope that if I have not persuaded the Minister, I have at least persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that my amendment No. 37 is reasonable and sensible.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Once again I can be brief, because much of what I was going to say has been said by my hon. Friends, and I do not want to detain the Committee for longer than necessary.

There are two incontrovertible aspects of the Bill. The first is that the powers of the Secretary of State will be increased compared with the principal 1990 Act. I am not arguing that in some areas the powers should not be increased; I am only saying that they are being increased. Secondly, it is incontrovertible that the Bill introduces powers and functions for the regional planning boards, none of which—I stand to be corrected—have yet been directly elected. Therefore, it is essential that we include in the Bill the need for public consultation wherever practicable. That is why I support amendment No. 140, moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow, which mirrors our amendment No. 59.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is being modest. I have examined his amendment No. 37 and our amendment No. 116, which would insert the words:

''Before preparing a draft revision of the RSS the RPB must set out proposals to ensure appropriate public consultation on the contents of the RSS in accordance with such guidance as is specified by the Secretary of State''.

I reckon that that means that clause 10(2)(c) is unnecessary, although I am prepared to correct myself. If I believe that a requirement for public consultation should be inserted into the Bill whenever practical, for the reasons that I have given, I shall see nothing wrong in keeping that subsection in. However, it was felt to be over-egging the pudding.

I shall make one final point, and I hope that I am not being too pedantic. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne could argue that, just as the public consultation should be set out in specific detail, we might find the same with ''such guidance''. What guidance? There is a limit to what can practically be put in a Bill, so I think that the definition

''such guidance as is specified by the Secretary of State''

is perfectly in order.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sure that my hon. Friend has spotted that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to clause 10 contains the phrase:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations''.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Minister is to reject our amendments, he must at least give the Committee an indication of what he intends to put into those regulations?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. This is necessarily a complicated Bill. The

emphasis and weighting that one gives certain words and phrases say everything. I want a Bill to be as specific as it practically can be, but I accept that there must be sweeping definitions that cannot necessarily be spelled out. Within that, I agree with my hon. Friend.

I apologise for detaining the Committee for slightly longer than I had intended, Mr. Pike, but I strongly support amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow, as well as those that we tabled.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I agree with Opposition Members that the amendments raise important issues, so I apologise if I detain the Committee slightly, to explain our position. I fully accept that there is nothing devious or sinister about the amendments, if the hon. Member for Spelthorne will accept that there is nothing devious or sinister about the clause.

Consultation and community involvement in a regional planning body's work, including statutory statements of community involvement and prescribing the consultation required in preparing draft revisions to regional spatial strategy, are important. I agree that community involvement in the RPB's work is vital and that there must be proper consultation on the preparation of revisions to the RSS. That is why consultation with and participation by the public are highlighted in the Bill as matters on which the Secretary of State may make regulations.

I happily confirm that we will not limit the consultation that the RPB can undertake in the course of RSS revisions, but it may assist the Committee if I explain the procedures that we envisage for community participation in the revisions.

Through guidance—a revised version of PPG11—we shall make it clear that the regional planning body should consider how best it can encourage community participation in the revision process and provide best practice advice. That will include the provision of free and readily available information about the preparation and content of the draft revision via newsletters and the appropriate RPB's website. In addition, we shall make a number of bodies statutory consultees, using the powers in clause 10, in particular subsection (2)(c). I do not want hon. Members to view those powers as embodying an either/or position. It would be inappropriate if we simply had a list of statutory consultees, ticked a box and said that that was sufficient for community or public participation. Equally, it would be inappropriate to have a broad notion that there should be community involvement and participation, to put that, through regulation, at the heart of the regional planning system, and still not give RPBs a statutory duty to consult a rich and varied list of statutory consultees who represent defined and clear interests above and beyond the norm for the wider public and community.

The guidance will emphasise that the RPB should also consider, via the county councils and the local planning authorities covered by the revision, how it can involve other developing networks, such as local strategic partnerships and community networks, in the review process—through the use of local planning forums, for example.

The person appointed to conduct an examination of the draft regional spatial strategy revision and the Secretary of State will expect the regional planning body to have provided opportunities for the community to be kept informed and involved, outside of the main stages of the more formal consultation. Although one should not underestimate the difficulties of securing effective community involvement in a regional strategy, the Committee should bear in mind that the existing non-statutory procedures for RPG have worked well, to an extent.

The Secretary of State has the power to withdraw recognition from the regional planning body, and the failure to involve regional interest adequately could result in such a withdrawal. That means that the criteria defining worthiness and the fitness for purpose of a regional planning body, to which I alluded earlier, include the notion of involving regional interests and stakeholders adequately. I interpret that as ensuring that at the regional level there is community involvement in any revisions. That is central to all that we seek.

For those reasons we see no pressing need to turn existing procedures into regulation, but the system is new, and it would be unacceptable not to have that as an option. Amendment No. 37 would therefore not be acceptable. It may be that over time, and with experience, it proves sensible to introduce additional consultation guidance over and above that I have already mentioned, but we feel that it is appropriate to see how the new system works in practice before coming to any final decision.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has made it clear that the Government intend to set minimum rather than maximum levels. We will deal with clause 10 in some detail later, I hope—or maybe not. I wonder whether the Government might consider making it clear that the provision sets a minimum level. I realise the current Minister's views on that, but some future Minister might use that power to restrict consultation. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I would—and I know that the draftsmen would—be loth to insert minima or maxima, because for every good authority or regional planning body that sets a minimum and aspires to go way beyond that, a range of others will see it as the level that they need to reach. If we made that change, it would weaken the Secretary of State's hand in saying whether an RPB has sufficiently represented the range of interests in a particular region in the context of community involvement. I am slightly wary of introducing minima or maxima because they are open to all sorts of interpretations, perverse and otherwise.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has already explained that the process is dynamic, and everyone involved will learn from experience. Surely we shall expect those involved to adopt best practice. Indeed, the Secretary of State will adopt best practice. Would it not therefore make sense to include a statement of community involvement for each RSS, so that we can see rapidly which RPB is adopting best practice, and spread that across all the other RPBs?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I think not, for the following simple reason. As I have already said, we feel that the revised PPG11 will achieve all of that and more, and leave the framework and powers in place for the Secretary of State to determine whether each RPB has sufficiently represented those interests. Community involvement at that regional level should be entirely distinct from community involvement at the coal face—as it were—in the development of local development documents, and the entire planning and development control process, for reasons that we shall consider later. There will be nothing to stop each RPB drawing up a statement of how it intends to involve the community in preparing future draft RSS provisions. I will happily encourage that through guidance.

Amendment No. 59 would require the RSS to provide an account of how the community has been involved. There are good reasons why statutory provision of that sort would not necessarily be appropriate. First, the RSS is a statement of the Secretary of State's policies for the region, so it would not be the right place for a statement of community involvement in RSS preparation.

Secondly, the extent of community involvement and stakeholder participation in the preparation of draft revisions to the RSS are matters that the Secretary of State and the person appointed to conduct the examination can take into account in deciding whether the policies and proposals are soundly based. Allowing the notion of participation and community involvement to permeate the entire process will be a far more efficient and effective way of securing that involvement at regional level than what is suggested in the amendment, however well intended.

The person appointed to conduct the examination might conclude that community involvement and stakeholder participation had been inadequate, and may have contributed to a draft revision that was seriously defective and not capable of ready correction—so the notion of involvement and participation is already in the process whereby revisions are considered. If a draft RSS revision were so defective, the person conducting the examination could recommend the Secretary of State to withdraw it, and require the RPB to come forward with a more soundly based revision, clearly containing evidence of stakeholder and community involvement.

Amendment No. 140 would require the RPB to prepare and implement a statement of community involvement. As I have already said, I am sympathetic to the intention there. The Bill requires local planning authorities to have statements of community involvement, as we shall see later, so at first sight, one might conclude that RPBs too should have them. However, there are important differences, to which I have already alluded. A local authority's statement of community involvement for local development documents serves two purposes. It deals with the preparation of local development documents and with the exercise of functions under part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, such as coal-face decisions on planning applications. Those, especially

the latter, are much closer to the local community than the strategic policies to be contained in the RSS.

There are many differences between local planning authority areas—such as whether they are urban or rural, and other matters that we explored last week. The statement of community involvement aims to ensure that suitable consultation takes place in each area. Those differences will be smaller between regions, and there will also be a strategic dimension at regional level, so there will be less benefit in having a statement of community involvement for regional matters.

I emphasise that through the utilisation of PPG11 and the other powers that date from the establishment of the regional planning body, we intended to—and have—put wider community and stakeholder involvement and statutory consultee involvement at the heart of the drawing up of RSSs, and of consideration of revisions. The lack of such community involvement is a bona fide reason for the person in charge of an examination in public, or even the Secretary of State, to explore matters further with the RPB and determine that a revision may be defective because that involvement has not been sufficient.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

First, will the Minister confirm that he has appointed consultants to examine how the framework for community involvement will operate under clause 17? Secondly, will he consider further my point that individual members of the public will feel very aggrieved if they do not have a sense of ownership of their planning system? If they feel that their local authority has been dictated to by an RPB that has not properly consulted them, they will feel even more aggrieved, especially in such matters as house-building targets and numbers.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

On the first point, which I was about to reach, we have appointed consultants to examine the framework and benchmarks for community involvement, and their report will be published soon. Short of having a crystal ball or a degree in futurology, I cannot determine when it will be published, or whether it will be published while we are deliberating the clauses to which it refers. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do all in my power to ensure that it will be in the public domain and in the hands of members of the Committee before the Bill has concluded its parliamentary passage—I mean, of course, before the House of Commons has concluded its consideration of the Bill. That was not a cryptic allusion to what will happen to it up the other end of the building.

I agree in general with the hon. Gentleman's point about ownership. I fully understand how people will be disaffected or disinclined to support the bodies if there is no sense of legitimacy or ownership of the regional spatial strategies. In all seriousness, that is why we have put community, stakeholder and statutory consultee involvement—all three are crucial—at the heart of the regulation process at regional level.

We will also determine that regional planning bodies must include details of consultation, and how

they have conducted that consultation, in their annual reports during the genesis of an RSS. In that context, and with PPG at the revised RPG level in place, it is not entirely accurate to say that there will never be input from the public or the wider community if the Secretary of State does not direct an examination in public for revisions to the RSS. On no occasion will a revision of RSS not at least be put into the public domain for community response and wider public engagement. The examination in public will simply be part of that process, but there will be significant input before that, not least because of the criteria that originally established the RPB, and the serious criterion concerning taking seriously, and taking on board, an array of regional interests as part of the underlying integrity and legitimacy of the regional planning bodies.

I therefore have no problem with the nature of the debate or the amendments, probing or otherwise. However, for the reasons that I outlined, and given my assurances that we are taking seriously public participation and community involvement at regional level, we have determined that this is a more appropriate and effective way of getting to the heart of that involvement in the process, followed by an SCI in the LDD—if I may spit out the acronyms. I take seriously the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Ludlow and other hon. Members, but I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister's response was fascinating, and in many ways reassuring. He told us that many safeguards were built into the Bill. Interestingly, however, he never explained why the amendment should not be accepted. The amendment would enhance not detract from the measures that the Minister mentioned, which include specifying statutory consultees and other forms of community involvement.

The debate has thrown up two issues, both of which were raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. They are both good reasons why the amendment should be accepted. The first is best practice, which would make the regional chambers, and ultimately the elected regional assemblies, state what their community involvement is. It would be much easier to analyse what each area is doing, and where regions are performing well in public consultation and where they are not—and it would make it much easier for the Minister to make regulations on the minimum levels of consultation, if he needs to. The public will be able to decide whether the elected regional assemblies consult them fully or do only the bare minimum. None of the Minister's reassurances help with that.

I concur with the hon. Member for Cotswold about public ownership. All the Minister's safeguards are present, but are not obvious and will not seem like safeguards to the public. For example, the Minister and inspectors have certain powers, but the public do not readily understand that.

One important aspect of a statement of community involvement—an aspect lacking in the Bill—is that it makes it clear to the public exactly what they can expect of their regional body. I am reassured about the existence of safeguards to ensure that public

consultation and consultation with other bodies is a key element of the regional planning process, but I am not convinced that the Minister has provided a good reason why amendment No. 140 should not be included in the Bill, and I urge the Committee to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 103, in

clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 51, in

clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert

'which must consider Action Plans for the forthcoming year and progress in meeting those plans for the previous year.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to make progress, because we have a great deal to discuss this morning and important amendments to move on to.

Subsections (4) and (5) stipulate that the RPB must produce a report on the implementation of the RSS in the region, which is burdensome and unnecessary. Subsections (2) and (3), under which the RPB has to keep matters under review, are already adequate to the task without the additional need to produce bureaucratic reports. If the Minister insists that the reports must be produced, we would like to prescribe what type of form would be most helpful—hence amendment No. 51. I commend the format of the old Department of the Environment reports, which contained four columns. One was a description of the target to be carried out, the second was the back year's target, the third was a reconciliation column, and the fourth dealt with any further action necessary in the coming year. That simple style of report made it easy to measure progress in respect of all objectives, and I commend it to the Minister.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I am a little disappointed that my Front-Bench colleagues do not believe that this amendment is as important as I do.

We constantly hear from the Government that they have a light touch and that they are giving freedom to local authorities, yet the Bill is riddled with examples such as those in subsections (5) and (4), which are to some extent overtaken by subsection (3). If implementation is monitored one would expect a report, but that is effectively redundant. The problem is the requirement that the RPB must report to the Secretary of State. What happens if local

authorities do not do so? How heavy will the report be? What sort of details will be required? What will happen if the Secretary of State does not agree? Will there be any consultation on the report? Will there be a reaction to the report from lower tiers, and will the Secretary of State take that into account? If the Secretary of State does not agree, will he change it? Will he interfere? What effect will that have on the status of the body producing the report? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is in a hurry, I shall leave those questions in cryptic form.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold would remove the requirement for the planning body to report annually to the Secretary of State on the implementation of the RSS in the region. Not surprisingly, we consider the amendment to be unacceptable. Policies in the RSS are those of the Secretary of State—not those of the RPBs—relating to the development and use of land in the region. The amendment would not remove the RPBs' duty to monitor implementation of the RSS, to which the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) alluded, and consider whether implementation is achieving the purpose of the RSS. As a result, although the regional planning body would be informed about the performance of the Secretary of State's policies, the Secretary of State would not. That would be a bizarre state of affairs.

Amendment No. 51 takes a somewhat different line on the same issue, and seeks to add to the requirements for the annual report to the Secretary of State. It would require the RPBs' annual reports on the implementation of the RSS in their regions to consider action plans for the coming year, and progress in meeting action plans for the previous year. It is unclear what is meant by an action plan. I presume that it means a discrete set of proposals concerned with implementing the policies in the RSS over the coming year. On that basis I consider the amendment to be unnecessary, given the arrangements that we have provided in the Bill and the intended regulations and guidance.

In summary, a regional planning body has three main functions under the Bill: preparing draft revisions to the RSS, keeping the RSS under review, and giving advice to other bodies or persons if that would help to achieve implementation of the RSS. Clause 3(3) requires RPBs to monitor implementation of the RSS throughout their regions, and to consider whether the implementation is achieving the purposes of the RSS. We intend to set out in regulations under clause 3 the fact that the report should contain information on the degree to which the targets set in the RSS are being achieved, and if not, why not. As I have made clear—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

In a simple, easy-to-understand and concise way, the mechanism prescribed in the old Department of the Environment reports did precisely what the Minister has just said. May I commend that format to him and ask him to examine it to see whether it could be incorporated?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I can certainly agree to consider whether that is appropriate when we draw up the appropriate regulations.

The other half of the equation is that in relation to current RPG, PPG11 clearly sets out the fact that the implementation of policies in the RPG through, for example, local plans and local transport plans, must be monitored effectively. Where appropriate, we want draft revisions to RSSs to propose output targets for areas in which policies will be implemented through the actions of other bodies, such as local planning authorities. Those targets will be central to the RPBs' ability to check that the strategy is being implemented as intended. PPG11 gives guidance to RPBs in that respect, and we shall give further advice in due course in the revision to PPG11.

It is important to repeat that we see the annual report as giving the wider public a report on the level of public involvement, consultation and so on in terms of any revision to the RSS. I alluded to that when discussing the previous group of amendments. An RPB should have a clear programme of implementation, with actions identified and targets set as an integral part of any draft RSS revision. The validity of the proposals can, of course, be properly examined.

On that basis, the annual report should be able to examine progress without being sidetracked into separate action plans. The monitoring process might trigger the need for the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS, or highlight the need for advice to be given to certain bodies on how they might assist in implementing the policies in the RSS. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned, there is no point in monitoring the implementation process if there is no subsequent evaluation and feedback loop to stipulate what will be done if the monitoring shows up inadequacies.

We firmly believe that all those elements are in the Bill, or will be in the guidance, and that is why I consider that the clause as drafted achieves the purpose of the amendments without the need to impose additional and unnecessary duties on the regional planning bodies. In that context, without unnecessary alacrity or expedition, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister for what—although I do not wish to offend my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, and I agree that this is an important matter—I might describe as a somewhat long-winded response on a relatively simple matter. We consider the reports to be unnecessary; as I have already said, there are already sufficient requirements for the RPBs, without their having to produce those reports. However, the Minister gave an explanation for that.

As the Committee proceeds I am increasingly worried—my hon. Friends may have noticed—about how big the RPGs will become. It seems to me that everything bar the kitchen sink will be put into them, and that if we are not careful, the RPGs will become longer than the Bill itself. I would rather see more detail put into the Bill, so that we can discuss

democratically what should be within the powers and obligations of the RPBs, rather than having that detail included in the guidance. However, that is the way in which the Minister proposes to do it, and for the time being we shall have to live with that. I do not agree with what the Minister said, and I do not like the bureaucratic attitude that the clause imposes on the RPBs, but given the time constraints, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in

clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 7, in

clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out 'it' and insert 'the body or person'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I cannot have done too bad a job, because I have been let loose again. Perhaps my hon. Friends believe that I need more practice.

It is easy to look at an amendment that proposes to change the word ''must'' to the word ''may'' and to glaze over and think, ''Here we go again.'' There is, however, a serious point behind the proposed amendment that I am sure that the Government can clear up for us, so that we will not need to press it to a Division.

When a planning authority is required to give advice to a person or body, I worry about the commercial implications. I sometimes have a suspicious mind, and can imagine that developers might see that obligation as a cheap way of getting advice on a difficult planning problem, whereas usually they would have to use their own staff or pay for expert advice. Under the proposed provision, a developer could say that the planning body was obliged to give him advice on how to get round a particular problem. I am sure that the Government do not intend to act as a free consultancy, but with the current wording the planning body would have to respond and give advice, even if that advice were commercially useful.

The Government should consider giving some discretion to the planning body so that it could say that for commercial reasons, it could not give advice in particular areas. If the Government do not like our approach they might like to reflect on the matter and come back on Report with their own amendment. That amendment could say that under appropriate circumstances—I accept that those circumstances would have to be carefully defined—the planning authority might charge for its advice, if it were asked to do commercial work under this provision. The Government should change the wording from ''must'' to ''may'', giving the authority the power to decline in certain circumstances—or they may prefer to word it differently on Report. No one here wants to set up a free consultancy agency for property developers, which would be entirely wrong.

I have difficulty with the provision that would be amended by amendment No. 7. Subsection (6) states:

''The RPB must give advice to any other body or person if it thinks that to do so will help to achieve implementation''.

It would be more appropriate if the person or body doing the asking considered that it would help. The power to refuse is in place, and no appeal against it is possible. The amendment would put the onus on the body or people who are asking, and they would be the judges of whether the advice would help, rather than allowing the RPB to decide. These are two genuinely probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I shall risk the wrath of the Whip who introduced the amendments. I agree with him about the first one, because ''may'' is often more appropriate than ''must'', but I disagree about the second, to which the care in the community clause is relevant. People who wish to make trouble will cause enormous difficulties if the provision is changed. My hon. Friend will recall from his experience in local government the fact that some people have nothing better to do than to plague local authorities—and the amendment would give those people considerable power. A similar provision appears later in the Bill, and I shall vote against it at that stage.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Under the clause, the RPB has to work in partnership with others to further the implementation of the RSS. The RPB has a duty to give advice to others where it would prove useful to the attainment of implementation. It is not merely a discretion, as amendment No. 104 would assert.

As the hon. Member for Mole Valley argued in respect of amendment No. 7, an RPB would be at risk of being tied up by requests for advice that would contribute nothing to its work—implementation of the RSS—and it might be unable to do its job properly. The amendments would also allow the RPB to opt out of giving advice to others even if it knew that that would help to implement the RSS.

I understand where the hon. Member for Spelthorne is coming from, and the amendments are useful in helping us to understand that in pursuit of implementation, it is appropriate to build a statutory duty into the Bill for the RPB to work with others. It would be inappropriate to make that discretionary. RPBs must give advice, but only where it would be helpful. If we made it discretionary, at the strategic regional level it could lead to all sorts of requests in the furtherance of commercial interests. The concerns of the hon. Member for Spelthorne are wide of the mark, because this is all about the regional spatial dimension, rather than site-specific queries that would further the commercial interests of particular developers.

In the context of the implementation of the RSS, it is appropriate to give the RPB a statutory duty to provide assistance where required. We all want to avoid a free-for-all, or the establishment of a publicly paid planning consultancy for all and sundry, which would be a greater risk if either amendment were accepted. That idea will not prevail under the clause, and the RPB will be obliged to render assistance to other bodies when the pursuit of the implementation of the RSS would be better achieved with that advice. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On amendment No. 104, I readily accept the Minister's argument that there must be an obligation to work with others, and on that basis, I accept that changing ''must'' to ''may'' is not the right way to address the point. If I heard him correctly, he said that he could understand where I was coming from. I will happily give way to him if he would like to tell the Committee that he is prepared to reflect upon the possible abuse of that power. I am not asking him to undertake to come forward with something, but just to reflect upon a point that could lead to abuse. He may conclude that it will not lead to abuse, but there will be an opportunity on Report to examine how one can safeguard an RPB against being made to do commercial work—in return for which I would readily accept that ''must'' is a better word than ''may''.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am happy to reflect on that point but I can say, with all the certainty that I can muster on this day at this time, that we have got it right. I will, however, happily reflect on it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That deals with amendment No. 104.

On amendment No. 7, I have broad shoulders. This morning has been interesting and I have been doing well, but I have been chastised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. Although it might be painful to be told off in public, I am grateful to him for reminding me of my true roots. Most of the time I would agree with his point but I have been indoctrinated into trying to be a spokesman for the nice party. On that occasion, I was perhaps trying to be too nice. He has a point, which I suspect to be relevant, and when the Minister agreed with him, I realised that I was isolated. I will not therefore bother to pursue amendment No. 7.

Given that the Minister is willing to reflect on the lead amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Clause 3 deals with the functions of the regional planning bodies in the same way that clause 2 sets them up, and the two clauses are obviously linked. I have no doubt in saying that clause 3, as it has not been amended, does not sufficiently stress the need for public consultation. At the risk of repeating myself—on this point one cannot repeat oneself too much—since the Bill gives increased powers to the Secretary of State and since it sets up RPBs, which to date are not directly elected, it is vital that public consultation and the rights of the public in the planning process are stressed. Sadly, where clause 3 presents an opportunity to stress public consultation—there are further opportunities later in the Bill—it has not been stressed sufficiently.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, clause 3 requires an RPB to keep under review the RSS and those matters that may affect development in its region or the planning of such development. I draw hon. Members' attention to the regulatory route map that was circulated last week, which simply states that

clause 3(5) clearly allows the Secretary of State to determine the form of the annual report. I repeat that a revised PPG11, and the other elements that we have in place for RPBs throughout part 1 of the Bill, will make more than adequate provision for public consultation and involvement at a regional level.

I let this go earlier, but I cannot continue to do so if the point is going to be repeated: the Bill does not in the broadest sense give the Secretary of State powers to anything like the extent referred to by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I made it clear last week that the only substantive way in which the Bill gives new powers to the Secretary of State is on RPGs changing into RSSs. It puts in statute many of the range of powers that the Secretary of State already has in administrative law.

This is not a Henry VIII or other monarchically inspired Bill. The powers included in it are not being put abroad by diktat or jackboot, or whatever else we were discussing last week. Having nailed that canard, I commend clause 3.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I do not want any misunderstanding. I apologise if I gave the impression that the clause of itself gives increased powers to the Secretary of State. I meant that the Bill in total gives increased powers to the Secretary of State.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am more than happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman's phrase was general and sweeping, rather than applying simply to clause 3. With that in mind, I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before we move to clause 4, following the points of order raised at the start of this morning's sitting, I can say that the Hansard report for Thursday's morning sitting is now in the Room and can be collected by hon. Members. The position with the report for the afternoon sitting is being looked into.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I wish to stress how important it is that we have the Hansard reports the day before our Committee sittings take place. Statements from the Minister and others need to be checked, so that we may have an opportunity to ask the Minister questions about his statements. If we do not receive Hansard the day before, it is difficult for the Committee to do its job of scrutinising the Bill properly. Can you ask the authorities to do their level best to make sure that Hansard is available the day before the Committee sits?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

It is not for the Chair to organise Hansard, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are passed on. There have always been difficulties in Committees being completely prepared on Tuesdays. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I know that he and his hon. Friends and other members of the Committee are extremely skilful members of the House and do not completely rely on

the recorded word when they make their speeches. However, I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's comments are passed on to the appropriate people.

Clause 4 - Assistance from certain local authorities

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No.115, in

clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

'(1) Each RPB should in relation to its region (or any part of it) consult an authority which falls within subsection (2) where such an authority has statutory powers relevant to the carrying out of any function that the RPB has.'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 114, in

clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (1).

No. 73, in

clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from 'consider' to end of line 39 and insert

'which authorities that fall within subsection (2) shall assist it in preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation of the RSS.'.

No. 120, in

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

'(2A) Any authority identified under subsection (1) above shall assist the RPB in preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation of the RSS.'.

No. 11, in

clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (5).

No. 210, in

clause 4, page 3, line 5, leave out from first 'council' to end of line 17.

No.215, in

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

'(e) a parish council.'

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This important group of amendments deals with the role of other authorities when the RPB draws up its functions.

We and many outside bodies consider clause 4 to be one of the Bill's weakest provisions. Subsection (1) says:

''Each RPB must consider whether in relation to its region (or any part of it) it would be desirable for an authority which falls within subsection (2) to assist it in carrying out any function it has.''

That can mean all things to all people. It can mean almost zero involvement by any of the higher-tier authorities, or considerable involvement. We believe again that, instead of it being left to the RPB's discretion, it should be written into the Bill. The other authorities listed in subsection (2) should have a statutory involvement. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 115. It seems to me that in drawing up the RSS, the RPB will have to consult those various authorities, so why not say so in the Bill?

The amendments are supported by the Local Government Association and others that have a strong weight of experience in such matters. The LGA tell us:

''It is important for all local authorities to have a statutory role in the RSS process, as it will impinge on strategic and local levels and will need their commitment. Given the lack of other formal

engagement in the new planning system, it will be particularly important for county councils to have a statutory role in helping to prepare the RSS.

The Bill proposes that the role of county councils will be to advise district authorities on the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) (if asked) and provide technical advice to the regional planning body and assist on the sub-regional aspects of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) (again, if asked). This role is not statutory.

Failure to establish a statutory planning duty for county councils will inevitably erode the strategic planning function. It will lead to a reduction in funding for strategic planning and the subsequent loss of strategic planning skills, which will be to the detriment of both the RSS and the LDF.

In many parts of the country, county councils have traditionally provided the bulk of the expertise and monitoring to underpin both regional planning guidance and local plans. Monitoring and policy capability does not currently exist at regional or local levels in most areas.

The government has indicated that from next year, money currently going to county councils will go direct to Regional Planning Bodies. It is not explained how county councils are expected to continue to provide input with less money and an intermittent, insecure and voluntary role, at the request of their partners, is not explained. At best, county councils resources in those areas will slowly wither away. Political commitment will inevitably decline for what will have become an ancillary activity and not a core function.

However, the government acknowledges the importance of county councils. Is this a case of desire to have legislative clarity, vis-à-vis outcomes on elected regional assemblies, outweighing a desire to enact legislation to actually deliver on the ground?''

We have reached a very important point. The Minister must explain the roles that county councils and other authorities will continue to have. If their funding is to be drained away and functions be eroded, the skill and expertise that currently exists in county councils may well be lost. There will be a considerable deficit to planning if the bulk of that skills base is lost. The Minister needs to address that critical point, and he should explain how the county councils will make a smooth transition to the RPB without losing that skills base.

Further amendments deal with other functions, notably those in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)—a tautologically drafted set of subsections. Subsection (1) says that it is desirable for relevant local authorities to be involved. Subsection (3) says that the RPB will consider whether that is desirable and must ''make arrangements''. However, subsection (5) says that subsection (1) does not apply to any function under clause 5(6). Subsection (6) says that subsection (3) does not apply when the RPB makes arrangements between local authorities as defined by section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. Our amendment would qualify subsection (3), and make that part of the Bill easier for practitioners to understand. Even if one reads subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) carefully, it is extremely difficult to understand what they mean. Even if our amendments are technically defective, I urge the Minister to see whether those subsections can be redrafted to incorporate something more sensible.

Amendments Nos. 210 and 215 are important, particularly the latter.

The list of authorities in subsection (2) does not include parish or town councils. We specifically mentioned parish councils in the amendment but could have mentioned town councils as well. From

my experience, parish and town councils fulfil several functions extremely effectively, but their main function is monitoring local planning. After all, they are closest to what is happening on the ground. In many cases, the people involved know every inch of their area, and it is right that the Bill should state that they must be involved when RPBs draw up RSSs. I hope that the Minister will address that lacuna.

The involvement of county, district and borough councils is critical, and we believe that they should be given stronger statutory powers. Four authorities are mentioned, but there is no mention of unitary authorities. Our amendments seek to correct what must surely be a drafting error. If it is an error, I ask the Minister to accept our amendment so that those authorities can be included. After all, it would be impossible for RPBs to function properly without considering the unitary authorities in their areas. Perhaps the Minister would explain why they are not included in the list.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I would like to go a little further than my hon. Friend in supporting amendments Nos. 115 and 114. The measure transfers—I use that word advisedly—the planning powers and functions of county councils and other local authorities to regional assemblies or regional planning bodies. However, it is essential that county councils keep all their powers and functions unless and until regional assemblies come into being. It is wrong that the powers of directly and democratically elected county councils, metropolitan district councils and so on should be taken away from them and given to a body that is not democratically elected. I hope that the power of what I am suggesting will not be lost if, having made that fundamental point, I sit down again.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to have to intervene on my hon. Friend. Amendments Nos. 76 and 253 are intended to do exactly what he is suggesting, so we will have a full discussion on the matter in due course.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recognised that, but the matter is so vital that we should take advantage of any opportunity to mention it that can be gained within the rules of order.

I particularly direct my next point to the Minister, because we both have the privilege of representing constituencies in the Greater London area. I cannot understand why the Government have not followed the model for the Greater London area. The local planning authorities in Greater London are the London boroughs. As I understand it, they have lost virtually none of their powers despite the implementation of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which brought into being the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor. I shall rehearse very briefly what happens in London, and I hope that I will not give the wrong impression by trying to put it as simply and quickly as possible.

The local planning authorities—the London boroughs—keep all their powers. The Mayor has only one power in relation to planning. I accept that he

has transport powers as well, but his only power under town and country planning, or spatial development, relates to certain categories which, for want of ease, are the substantial planning applications in the Greater London area. He has the right to call in such applications and direct the local planning authority to turn them down. Even if an application is rejected as a result of a direction from the Mayor, or as a result of a local planning authority decision, the applicant has the inalienable right to appeal to the Secretary of State. There is an argument for saying that if one gives the Mayor certain powers, he should act as Secretary of State in the Greater London area. Whether or not one agrees with that, one can see that it is consistent and logical.

However, the Government have deliberately not transferred that power to the Mayor and the Mayor's role is therefore essentially superfluous. If he directs the local planning authority to reject the application—incidentally, a local authority can still say that it is minded to approve an application—the applicant can appeal to the Secretary of State. I am sorry if I have gone on slightly longer than I might have done, but this point is important. I do not know why that sort of situation cannot be replicated for the regional planning bodies.

In conclusion, RPBs should not be given any powers, except, of course, if there has been a referendum to decide whether people in that region want an assembly. Obviously, it would be wise to do preparatory work in that case. However, that relatively minor exception apart, no power should be transferred until regional assemblies are directly elected.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I support the amendments because they relate to what I think will turn out to be one of the more crucial elements of how things work in practice. The clause begins: ''Each RPB must''. That makes us think that the RPBs will have to do something dramatic. However, the next word is ''consider''. So, the RPBs do not have to do something, but just have to think about it. They need consider only whether it would be ''desirable'' for a local authority to assist them. The RPB could say that it did not want any assistance from any county council, metropolitan council or unitary authority. I am sure that the Minister will say that the Secretary of State would then be able to take away the powers of that RPB on the grounds that it was not consulting enough of its statutory consultees and not seeking enough assistance. That would be a rather convoluted way of doing things. Surely we want the Bill to ensure that RPBs work in conjunction with the counties, if they still exist, and with the unitary councils that will presumably exist, in one form or another, once regional government is in place.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, I am concerned, along the lines pointed out by the hon. Member for Ludlow, about London. It is fairly well known that there is a disagreement between many local authorities in London and the Mayor. The Mayor believes in tall buildings, but some of the local authorities do not. I foresee a situation in which the

Mayor will go ploughing in, taking little or no notice of local authorities, and impose things on those authorities. At the very least, local authorities ought to have the statutory right to interfere, put their point and explain it to the Mayor.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That point is well made. The crucial point is that we need statutory involvement of the next tier down when the RPB is carrying out its function. We need that because the council, whether it is a county council or a unitary authority, will often have a better grasp of what is needed and wanted at local level. I not talking about local functions, but the RPB will be looking at housing numbers, airports, ports and major road developments, and those matters have a local impact. We need to bring information and views up from the bottom, rather than allowing the top to decide whether to listen to what the bottom thinks.

I find this part of the Bill slightly surprising. It is clear from what the Minister has said on previous clauses that he is in favour of involving different groups of people in such processes. He speaks well on that and I am surprised that he does not see that it is important to insist on councils being involved.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is making cogent points. He has already agreed with me that it is important that the Bill should produce a system by which local people can feel ownership of the planning process. We have failed to convince the Government that they need to produce a statement of community involvement. If local people do not feel that the councils closest to them—parish, district, borough and county councils—are properly involved in what they perceive to be a remote regional process, they will feel very alienated. For that reason, if for no other, it is important that local authorities should be involved.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I concur completely.

The amendments are relatively modest. They do not seek to put draconian burdens on the regional planning body. They say that the RPBs should consult, but only where the authority

''has statutory powers relevant to the carrying out of''

the RPB's function. That does not put an over-onerous task on the RPB. Under amendment No. 73, the RPB would have to consider

''which authorities that fall within subsection (2) shall assist it in preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation''.

That is relatively modest and again uses the word ''consider''. The amendments perhaps do not go as far as I should like them to, but they are supported by the Local Government Association and, as I understand it, quite a wide range of councils in that association.

I say to Labour Members that, after the Bill is enacted and if the amendments are not accepted, people may visit their constituency surgeries in a few years' time saying, ''We don't like what the region is doing—what can be done about it? Can the local council say anything?'' They will have to turn round and say that the local council cannot do anything because the region can ignore it if it wants to. The result will be that local people will find, exactly as the

hon. Member for Cotswold said, that they have very little ability to influence the RPB's work, particularly where the RPB is a regional chamber, not an elected regional assembly. If we get elected regional assemblies, at least local people will have the right every few years to throw out its members if they are upset by decisions on local planning; but they have no control whatever over the people in regional chambers. Especially in their early years, RPBs should have to consult and work with—work with is the important point—lower tiers of authorities.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall speak first to amendment No. 11, because I want to be sure that I wholly understand the position. It has been made clear that the whole clause is woolly and urgently in need of sorting out. The amendments, similarly, take some working out.

I think that my understanding of the clause is right. We have discussed at some length subsection (1) in relation to whether assistance should be sought from other bodies. Amendment No. 11 would remove subsection (5), which says:

''Subsection (1)''—

that is the issue of working with other people—

''does not apply to a function of the RPB under section 5(6).''

I take that to refer to what is now clause 5(6), and I see nods in various places. If that is not correct, what I am saying will not be relevant.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

It is correct.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have seen enough nods, Mr. Pike, to understand that I have got it sorted out in my mind.

We therefore need to look at clause 5(6), which says:

''When the RPB has prepared a draft revision, the report to be prepared under subsection (4)(b) and any other document to be prepared . . . it must—

(a) publish the draft revision, report and other document;

(b) submit them to the Secretary of State.''

That is what clause 5(6) requires the RPB to do.

Clause 4 says, ''You should consider consulting''. We believe that that is not strong enough. We have been round that argument. The present debate is about ''You must work with other people'', so why does subsection (5) say ''Even if you should work with other people, when it comes to clause 5(6), you don't''? That is why I wanted to be clear that I had it right.

Clause 4(5) says that, when one turns the page to clause 5(6), whatever may have been said about working with other people does not apply to this part of clause 5. Why? We are saying that working with other people is not adequate. The Government are saying, ''You don't need to do it at all in certain circumstances''. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on amendment No. 11.

I turn to amendment No. 215. The Bill provides many points on which we could give some discussion to parish councils. If you will allow me, Mr. Pike, to say all that I want to say in one go, I shall not need to debate the matter again. We need to think seriously about parish councils. It is tempting, when one reads

the list in clause 4(2), to say, ''Who cares about parish councils? They are tuppenny ha'penny outfits, sometimes representing only a few hundred people. What can they contribute to the great scheme of civilised 21st century society?'' I went through those arguments many times during my years in local government.

Of all bodies, I believe that the parish council should be at the top of the list. Successive Governments since the 19th century have tinkered with local administration. We have been through the gamut of sanitary districts, urban sanitary districts, urban districts, rural districts, county councils, metropolitan this, and metropolitan that. We have just reached unitary authorities when, lo and behold, regions become the fashion.

The one thing that marks out all the great and good authorities listed here and all others since the 19th century public health movement got going is that they are artificial, which is why they do not work and why we regularly have to create something else.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My history is not as good as it should be.

The parish is the one expression of natural self-identity in local government. Artificial bodies come and go, but the parish remains. In debates of this kind, I always predict that if, after we are all long gone, we were to come back from the churchyard after 300 years to sit on a Standing Committee, the parish would be the only thing that we would recognise about local government. It will still be here and everything else will have been changed according to the fashion of the day.

We therefore need to understand that if we are to get plans for people right and if we are keen to use vehicles—particularly if the Government are keen to go into social engineering—we need to understand what natural communities want for themselves and what they see for themselves. The only way in which it can be done is by talking to people at parish level, which is where one finds the reality of a community. The higher up the food chain one goes, the further one gets from ordinary people and the more likely one is to deal with what politicians want, which is often not what ordinary people want. Before one knows where one is, one gets into what the technical experts want, which nobody else understands.

Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, one can also get into the realm of what pressure groups want. The further one goes up the great organisations, the more artificial and removed from natural communities they become and the less they represent what people really want. Amendment No. 215 would put the parish council, which is not just a tuppenny-ha'penny outfit, on the list. It is one thing that we can do to ensure that the system produces what people want. Some might say, ''Ah, the parishes do not have the experts or the offices.'' That is exactly the point. The people who contribute at parish councils are ordinary people

whose minds are not clogged up by planners who offer them all sorts of advice.

Amendment No. 215 is worthy, and I urge the Government not to dismiss it out of hand as a debating point. I should be interested to know whether they believe that parish councils should not be considered and why that might be. I hope that they will accept amendments Nos. 215 and 11, or at least explain why amendment No. 11 is not necessary.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Clearly, this is another important debate. I am mindful of the time, but Opposition Members have made plenty of comments that I need to address.

Clause 4 hangs together naturally with the rest of the Bill. Whatever difficulties people have with clause 4, it is inappropriate to consider it in isolation. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Ludlow to suggest that clause 4 somehow means that an RPG can dismiss or totally ignore local councils. Clearly, it cannot ignore them, not least because of the functions outlined in clauses 2 and 3, and it is entirely in error to suggest that it can.

On a more specific point, the definitive list of unitary authorities includes county councils, metropolitan district councils and district councils for an area in which there are no county councils—that is it. The only bodies missing, which would clearly be inappropriate in that list given what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, are London boroughs. It is totally unnecessary to add ''and unitary authorities'' because there are no unitary authorities that do not come under those four headings. It is wrong to suggest that there is a ''lacuna'' in the list.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall ask the following question quite innocently. My sister, the successful politician in the family, is the deputy leader of Windsor and Maidenhead unitary authority. Does Windsor and Maidenhead come under that list as a metropolitan district council?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I understand it, it is a district council where there is no county council. There are districts with no counties, counties with no districts, metropolitan district councils and London boroughs. That is the extent of the unitary level of local government in this country. There is no need for a catch-all unitary phrase beyond that. Unless someone among those to my left, whose presence in this Room we do not recognise, falls over, I shall maintain that.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am slightly bemused by that. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on what Herefordshire is. It is not a county council, before he says that. It is called Herefordshire unitary authority because it serves the functions of a district and county authority. Counties exist only where there are district councils underneath them. They are part of a two-tier function. Herefordshire and Telford are unitary authorities. The latter was taken out of Shropshire county council and became a unitary authority; it is not called a district council.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the best will in the world, may I say that the hon. Gentleman has only half an hour left

in which to be bemused in the morning sitting. Unless I hear the thud of someone fainting to my left, I can say that he is absolutely right. Without the other unitary elements, Herefordshire is under law a county council without districts or the other way round, although it may not deem itself so. Name is not important. The status is statutory and it is a district with no counties. There we are.

Acclamation and reinforcement of what I say is extremely comforting for me as a Minister. It is when my officials start writing faster, and shaking their heads that I worry, which is why I never look at them.

The clause is fundamental to the two key principles of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said. First, there is a need to achieve only two levels of plan-making: strategic and local. Secondly, there is a need for clarity about responsibility and accountability. Although much of what the hon. Gentleman said underpins what we say about the relative strengths and functions of the system as it is and the transformation of that system, I suspect—as we will discover later—that this is not the appropriate place to debate county councils.

Amendment No. 115 would make it compulsory for a regional planning body to consult an authority that falls under the remit of clause 4(2) where that authority has statutory powers relevant to the RPB's function. The change is entirely unnecessary.

Authorities, or any other body or person, will have a statutory right to make representations on draft revisions to the RSS. At the discretion of the person appointed to hold the examination, those authorities will be able to participate in examination in public of the draft revision, and they will also be made statutory consultees in the preparation of RSS revisions. That will be done, as I said earlier, through secondary legislation.

County councils in two-tier areas will continue to be responsible for minerals, waste and transport planning. In that context, and in that of the criteria to which I referred earlier in the Green Paper relating to the drawing up of RSS, and taking due note of all regional players and stakeholders and other regional factors, bodies that have statutory responsibility for minerals, waste and transport planning will be at the heart of the process. They must be. I will stick my neck out and say that if a Secretary of State approves an RSS or RSS revision where there has been no consultation or collaboration with a statutory body that is responsible for minerals, waste and transport, there is but a slim chance that that RSS would be nodded through or approved.

Amendments Nos. 114 and 73 are closely related. The first would leave the RPB with no duty to consider whether it would be desirable for authorities to assist it. The second seems to presuppose that it would always be appropriate that one or more of the authorities should assist the RPB in carrying out its functions. The key to the clause is the carrying out of those functions. Neither amendment would be acceptable. The RPB has responsibility for preparing draft provisions to the RSS and is best placed to judge what, if any, assistance it needs. Neither the duty to

consider that issue, nor a requirement always to obtain assistance irrespective of its value would be sensible.

Amendment No. 120 would impose a duty on authorities to assist if the RPB requested. The difficulty is how to compel an authority to provide assistance when it has refused to do so through a voluntary agreement. I have never come across an effective partnership in which one party is there by force, not through free will. I do not think that that would be workable in practice.

Amendment No. 11 would remove the prohibition on an RPB arranging for an authority to carry out the functions in clause 5(6) on its behalf. Those functions are publishing a draft revision to the RSS, publishing the report of the sustainability appraisal of the proposals in the draft revision, publishing any further documents relating to the draft revision required by regulations under clause 5(5)(b) and submitting those documents to the Secretary of State.

As I have emphasised, we attach serious importance to authorities' contributions to the RPB's work, but it is vital to guarantee true regional ownership of the key regional strategy. That means reserving certain key functions to the RPB itself. Amendment No. 11 would allow the RPB to abdicate all responsibility. It would not have to take final responsibility for draft RSS revisions, the report of sustainability appraisal or any other documents required by regulations. Instead of a proper regional strategy, we could end up with an amalgam of policies prepared by individual authorities, which would—perhaps this is the purpose of the amendment, although I am not suggesting that—directly undermine the principle of having two tiers of plans, strategic at regional level and local at district or unitary level.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

All that the Minister has just said about amendment No. 11 would be true if clause 4(1), to which it relates, were about passing over the responsibility for something to somebody else. I can well understand the argument that if a task is passed over, ownership is lost. However, clause 4(1) is about assisting the RPB to do something, not about someone else doing something instead of the RPB, so my argument on excluding assistance surely stands, and the Minister has addressed the wrong point.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Absolutely not. The heart of the point is the revision of the RSS under clause 5(6), which is excluded. We are clearly saying that although there may be assistance, there are statutory duties that it is incumbent on the RPB to fulfil. That is the only body responsible for revisions to the RSS. That must be the case, if the points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold on ownership of the process are to be sustainable throughout the system.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Surely that is not logical. I shall repeat my question. Why is it appropriate for a body to assist in the drawing up of the plan but not to assist in drawing up the revision? Where is the difference? I am trying to get the Minister to comment on that, not on ownership. If assisting in drawing up the original plan is not a loss of ownership, how in heaven's name

is it a loss of ownership to allow someone to assist in its revision?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Because, as I said quite clearly earlier, once the RSS is in place, it is the duty of the RPB and only the RPB to maintain the integrity of the RSS, review its implementation and come forward with any revisions. As we said under clause 3 and parts of clause 2, it can do that with proper participation and involvement from others but, ultimately, the RPB has statutory duties and lives or dies by its achievement of those duties. It can have assistance en route but must be held accountable in the first instance for its statutory duties in the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That does not answer the question at all. I shall try once more. Where is the distinction between the plan and the revision of the plan? If it is sensible to have assistance in one activity, we are surely entitled to an explanation of why assistance is to be banned in other activities. It does not undermine the integrity of anything to get help from other people; it jolly well ought to improve it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is not banned, in any way, shape or form, in clause 4, clause 5 or anywhere else, for relevant bodies to assist in the drawing up of the revision or anything else. What I am clearly saying is that the revision of the RSS as a whole is the statutory duty of the RPB and no one else. The Bill's exclusion of functions under clause 5(6) only emphasises that point.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Again, I simply cannot follow that. Clause 4(5) does indeed ban the seeking of assistance with a particular function because it excludes functions under clause 5(6) from the assistance-seeking provisions. It is wrong for the Minister to assert that there is nothing in the clause that bans anyone from doing anything. If I have misunderstood the meaning of clause 4(5), would he provide an explanation? So far, he has not in any way contradicted my understanding of it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The only prevention or ban in the Bill, as I have tried to say, relates to the discharging of the RPB's statutory duty. The Bill prevents assistance in the publication and submission to the Secretary of State of the draft revision of the RSS, because that is very specifically the statutory function of the RPB. That is the import and effect of all the different cross-references between Bills.

Nothing in the Bill prevents assistance simply in drafting informally or otherwise considering subsequent revisions to the RSS, but the element of the statutory function, the core of the two-tier regional and local planning system that is to be put in place, cannot be usurped or passed on to anyone else. It must be discharged by the RPB.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That would be a splendid argument about statutory duties if it were consistent. As I understand it, the body has a statutory duty to produce the original plan, but clause 4(1) says that it can seek assistance in carrying out that duty. The Minister is having difficulty in persuading me that the statutory duty of providing the plan would be

undermined by seeking assistance. Let me try again: what is the difference between the statutory duty of revising, in which assistance is inappropriate, and the statutory duty of producing the plan in the first place, for which assistance is considered desirable?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I suspect that, given the time, I shall have to live with my disappointment at not having persuaded the hon. Gentleman, and move on.

Amendment No. 215 would add parish councils to the list of authorities that an RPB must consider when deciding whether assistance in carrying out its functions would be desirable. I am happy to say, as Opposition Members have said, that I have a very high regard for the excellent job that parish councils do. I would not seek to put in place arrangements that in any way undermine the important role that they fulfil.

However, the amendment borders on the absurd. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that RSSs are concerned with planning at specific strategic levels. The functions of an RPB primarily relate to keeping the RSS and the plan of development and the matters that affect it under review, preparing draft revisions of the RSS and giving advice to others to assist in implementing the RSS. Authorities that assist the RPB in carrying out such functions would need to have experience and expertise in such areas—as the hon. Gentleman foresaw. With the best will in the world, parish councils do not have that experience and expertise.

Parish councils have no statutory responsibility for planning at either the local or the strategic level, and are not required to have any formal expertise in planning. Therefore they would be unable to undertake survey or review functions or prepare draft revisions. Their focus and expertise is on local rather than strategic issues. That is absolutely right—it is the core of their strength. At no point does the Bill detract from the provisions already in the planning system for parish councils.

In addition, proposals in an RSS will rarely, if ever, be expressed in terms of parish areas. As a result, policies in an RSS will not be for parish councils to implement. That does not mean that parish councils will have no input to draft revisions of the RSS. We want to achieve wide community involvement in their preparation. Parish councils will be able to make representations on draft revisions to an RSS through the consultation on proposals, and may have input through district councils and other upper-tier authorities on working groups that are preparing draft revisions.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I fear that when the Minister reads Hansard and reflects calmly on what he has just said, he will discover that he has insulted every parish council and councillor—because the argument adduced for not putting them on the list is that they are not intelligent or expert enough, and that they have nothing to contribute.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Rubbish.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister said that parish councils did not have the expertise. It is as if one must be a technical expert to organise aspects of people's lives in

the future. I find that insulting, and I suspect that many parish councillors will feel deeply insulted by the Minister's comments.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is getting tired. He spent all Thursday putting words in my mouth and now he is doing it again, to a ridiculous extent.

I said that the parishes had no statutory duty relating to planning at local strategic level and were not required to have any formal expertise in planning. Authorities assisting RPBs to carry out that function need experience and expertise in those areas, but with the best will in the world, parish councils simply do not. If the hon. Gentleman is offended by that, tough. The consultation role of parish councils at local level throughout the country will be enhanced rather than otherwise by the provisions in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman made an entirely spurious point.

Nothing in the amendments would add to RPBs' ability to fulfil their statutory role or to the provisions to allow county councils, metropolitan district councils, district councils and national park authorities—they have an important role in planning matters but there is not enough time to go into that—to assist RPBs. In that context—forlornly, I suspect—I ask Opposition Members not to press the amendments, because they would add nothing to the power and ability of the authorities that they seem so concerned about to influence RPBs or RSSs as they suggest. If anything, the amendments would detract from their ability to do so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This debate has been an enlightening experience. The longer the debate continues, the more hostages to fortune the Minister gives. His comment that amendment No. 215, which would include parish councils, borders on the absurd will enrage members of parish and town councils throughout the country. I do not know where the Minister has been during his eleven and a half years on a planning committee, but if he has not found out about the considerable expertise and knowledge on those parish and town councils, he has not been living in this world.

The clause is weak enough as it is. It merely states that RPBs must consider—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I shall give way in a minute.

The clause does not even say that RPBs must consult, which is what I would have preferred. Surely RPBs would be very foolish if they did not consider well constructed and well thought-out representations from individual parish and town councils when a large development was about to affect their area.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall add another hostage to fortune for the hon. Gentleman: the world in which I live, as he knows, is a London borough where I was a member of a planning committee for eleven and a half years—and where there is no such thing as a parish or a town council. That is just for the record.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Game, set and match. That shows how little knowledge the Minister has of the rest of the country. The Bill does not primarily cover

London; it primarily covers the rest of the country—the eight regions. The Minister has admitted how little knowledge he has of those other areas. People will listen to, and read, these exchanges with great interest, and they will hear what the Minister has to say. In failing to consider a more important consultative role for county and district councils he has failed to consider the expertise that is available in those authorities. He has said not one word about how he will maintain the skill base and expertise within county councils. Unless planning officers in those authorities receive some reassurance fairly quickly, that will drain away and the system throughout the country outside London, about which he knows nothing, will suffer. The Minister's consideration of and reply to these amendments is wholly inadequate. I feel very strongly about the matter, and urge my hon. Friends to support me in pressing the amendment to a vote.

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. 52, in

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

'(e) A unitary authority.'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.289, in

clause 15, page 9, line 7, at beginning insert 'A unitary authority or'.

Amendment No.290, in

clause 15, page 9, line 18, at end insert 'or unitary authority.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is a group of simple amendments. There seems to us to be a lacuna in the list of authorities in clause 4(2), as unitary authorities are not listed. Having heard the Minister's explanation for that, and having, perhaps prematurely, become involved in the argument on the previous group of amendments, I am prepared to sit down and let the Minister give us an explanation, which I hope will be adequate. Then we can move on to other amendments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I fully accept what the Minister told us earlier—that a unitary authority is defined in subsection (2)(c). I suggest that he either change paragraph (c) to read ''a unitary authority'' or at least, if there are district councils in an area in which there is no county council other than unitary authorities—this is where I think it would be wise to expand the Bill—add to that paragraph the words ''including unitary authorities''. The phrase ''unitary

authority'' is far better known than the rather tortuous definition in the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I too shall be brief. The Minister was kind enough to say that I was right earlier this morning. The piece of paper that he was handed was absolutely right, in that the legal definition of districts without counties is exactly that, although most of the councils concerned like to conceal the fact.

I was always under the impression that the two exceptions to all the other rules that the Minister has correctly explained were first, the City of London, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and secondly, the Isles of Scilly. Can the Minister reassure us that the definitions in the Bill include the Isles of Scilly council?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have no idea about the Isles of Scilly—but without a doubt I shall find out in a minute.

There is no such term as ''unitary authority'' in primary legislation. To add unitary authority as an additional definition would be irrelevant, because it is not a recognised concept in primary legislation; it is merely a device used by the local government boundary commission and others to determine what an authority does.

As I have said, there are four distinct types of unitary authority. The only three that are relevant to the clause are in the Bill. London boroughs are the fourth type. For those reasons, and those that I mentioned earlier, it is inappropriate to accept the amendments. They would add nothing to the Bill, except a phrase that does not exist in any other primary legislation. I suspect that we would then have to produce a schedule the size of a telephone book that explained what we meant in the Bill by the term ''unitary authority''.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I confess that I did not know that unitary authorities were not mentioned in any other legislation, so I gratefully accept what the Minister says, and I thank him for explaining that. I also remind him that the Isles of Scilly are dealt with in clause 81, which specifically refers to clause 4. That may be helpful to him.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking me for the help that I gave him, and in return I thank him for the help that he has just given me in pointing to clause 81. The pleasure, as an ex-Whip and as a Minister who deals with knives, is that one goes with the knife at the time, and rereads the Bill at weekends when one has time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Having heard the Minister's explanation, and particularly the fact that there is no statutory definition of a unitary authority, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I call Mr. Clifton-Brown to move amendment No. 74.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Because of the pernicious timetable, I want to use our final few minutes to

discuss the next group of amendments Mr. Pike, so I shall not move amendment No. 74.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

That is fine.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

'(8) Where no elected regional assembly exists, the relevant Structure Plans or Unitary Development Plans (Part 1) should continue to be prepared by the responsible local authorities.'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 253, in

clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

'(8) In regions where no directly elected assembly exists each RPB must attempt to make arrangements to permit any authority which falls within subsection (2) to assist it in its functions by preparing sub-regional strategies consistent with and subsequently, for inclusion within, the RSS.

(9) In regions where no directly elected assembly exists each authority which falls within subsection (2) must assist the RPB by preparing sub-regional strategies in conjunction with other authorities which fall within subsection (2) as determined by the RPB.

(10) Section 5 (3) will apply to any authority carrying out its functions under subsection (9).'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Committee members have mentioned the interim period before any elected regional assembly exists. We feel that the regional chambers' lack of democratic accountability will be a problem. I have already stated that many of the chambers will contain indirectly elected members. County, district and other bodies will propose representatives to the chambers, so they will not be properly democratic.

We feel that it is not reasonable for a regional planning body to assume large powers—a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet touched when we discussed a previous group of amendments—until the region gets an assembly.

The amendments seek to prevent those powers from coming into effect until the people have had a chance to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly. I remind members that to set up a regional assembly is a considerable process: the Government must take soundings; then they must draw up proposals for unitary authorities; and then they may hold a referendum. A regional assembly will come into operation only when people have voted in that referendum.

With a huge upheaval in the planning process being proposed, and given the huge centralising powers that the RPB has, particularly as the Minister refuses to allow any statutory consultation with the lower-tier authorities, it is all the more relevant that those powers should not come into effect until the regional assembly is up and running.

I cannot stress enough that if people are to feel ownership of that system, if they are not to be alienated from it, and if they are not to feel that the Secretary of State and some remote regional body are imposing on their local areas regulations that they do not like, they will become more alienated from the democratic process. We cannot be surprised that

turnout drops election after election. There must come a point at which democracy will be in peril.

The House must put in place structures that local people feel that they can really control and influence. My real fear is that people will not feel that they have control over their planning system because of the Bill's centralising tendency. They may not come back with a vengeance against that system immediately, but they will in some years' time. I suspect that some future hon. Members will be back in some future Committee Room to try to start the whole process again or radically to overhaul it.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments. I am not confident that he will, because he seems to want the centralising tendency all the time. However, the Opposition have a duty to ensure that democracy is alive, vibrant and kicking.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. In a matter of moments we shall discover why it is entirely wrong to programme Bills. When it comes to guillotining this part of the Bill, my colleagues and I consider it entirely wrong that any clause that has not even been considered in Committee should stand part of the Bill. Therefore, we should like to have Divisions on each of the clauses that have not been considered. This is an abuse of democracy; it is crazy, and we now see the Government exposed for what they are.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Under the Standing Orders of the House, I must put a series of questions. I need to do that now. There will be two Divisions only—one on the amendment that has been made and one on the clauses.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Standing Committee G

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. At the end of the morning sitting we encountered a guillotine motion. I am conscious that guillotine motions have a party political element, and I appreciate that it would be inappropriate to explore that now. I do not wish to question the principle, although I have objected to it in the past when I raised a point of order about the fact that we could not have a vote on each of the clauses that we had not reached. However, I appreciate that you had no choice but to do what the rules required you to do, which was to put the question on all the clauses together.

I am mindful of the fact, Mr. Pike, that you are a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is considering the detailed workings of guillotine motions. It occurs to me that it might be worth encouraging you to tell that Committee that although the Opposition objected—we had no choice but to vote against everything, because is was a block vote—we would not necessarily have objected to all the clauses. In that case, we could make more progress, and be seen to be making more progress, by taking the clauses one at a time. It is in that spirit, rather than an attempt to reopen the generality, that I raise that point.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman raises issues that are not matters for me. I have to carry out the decisions of the Committee and of the House. However, the point has been made, and I am sure that other members of this Committee are also members of the Modernisation Committee. Those issues are to be reviewed by the Modernisation Committee, and in my capacity as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I know that that Committee, too, is considering the matter. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the point that he makes, although not relevant to me in my capacity as Chairman of this Committee, will be considered.Clause 12 Survey of area

Clause 12 - Survey of area

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in

clause 12, page 7, line 13, at end insert—

'( ) the historic sites and monuments of the area;'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 178, in

clause 12, page 7, line 13, at end insert

'the historic environment of the area;'.

Amendment No. 40, in

clause 12, page 7, line 14, after 'those', insert 'or any other relevant'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 12, page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (2)(f).

Amendment No. 42, in

clause 12, page 7, line 17, at end insert—

'(g) the principal generation of employment in the area;

(h) the role played by the area in the economic and social life of the nation.'.

Amendment No. 43, in

clause 12, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

'(c) the effect such changes are likely to have on the economic and social development of the nation or on the planning of such development.'.

Amendment No. 44, in

clause 12, page 7, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We are now moving on to part 2, which will be the Bill's Waterloo. It is horrendously confusing, with different documents, frameworks and plans, all with competing authorities, all of which must be revoked, revised or renewed. It is not just me saying that; Friends of the Earth—I do not always agree with them, but they make a good point—say of the local development framework:

''The new local planning framework proposed in the Bill is complex and costly, extremely confusing in legal terms and ineffective in generating public involvement. Local Development Frameworks will require three yearly replacement, annual reviews and continual updating.''

We then come to the most important part:

''The administrative burden will be huge and make effective public consultation impractical. Instead of one plan with policies and a map''—

that is exactly what is proposed for Wales; why we have to impose all those different policies, frameworks and documents on England I cannot imagine—

''England will have a series of documents, including core policy, action plans and statements of community involvement. These documents are intended to have differing legal weight in decision-making and may have different adoption process. It is not clear what problem the Government is trying to solve through this new framework but the result is a confusing mess. The starting point for any effective planning system is structural simplicity.''

I have already cited Bernard Shaw in that respect. I cannot understand why the Government have come up with such a confusing system.

The Confederation of British Industry states:

''The Bill sets out broad powers to revise or revoke documents. It is important that an appropriate balance is struck between the flexibility to ensure documents can be revised and kept up to date and the certainty needed by business and others to be able to plan for the longer term.''

That is the context for the clause and the amendments. I call it a system of chaos and confusion.

Amendment No. 87 was suggested to us by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It would increase the profile and importance of non-statutory historic sites in local planning and, by extension, help to ensure that adequate expertise and resources would be directed towards their care and protection. I am sure that everyone on the Committee agrees with that. Those sites are important parts of our national heritage. Damage has been done to them in the past. Surely they need greater protection. If so, it is right to accept the amendment.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England comments:

''Non-statutory historic sites and monuments are an irreplaceable asset to the countryside and to urban areas, contributing to the character and historical resonance of their surroundings for visitors and those who live and work there.''

The CPRE believes

''that the recording and protection of these sites and monuments, registered in the Sites and Monuments (SAMs) register, would benefit from statutory recognition. The relatively low importance attended to such sites and monuments has in many cases contributed to a reduction in (often already inadequate) resources allocated to their protection by local authorities.''

If the Minister intends to resist the amendment, he will have to make a good case to show why it should not be in the Bill. At what stage will the subject I have raised be considered?

My hon. Friend has tabled many other amendments, but I should like in particular to discuss amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These concern matters that must be considered when the local development plan is being drawn up—or am I getting myself confused? Incidentally, perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to the local development framework, which was highly trailed in the Green Paper, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change''. I do not see the words ''development framework'' mentioned in the Bill. Instead, there are now to be local development schemes, local development documents and local development plan documents. Again, perhaps the Minister will explain to us precisely how those three mesh together.

If my understanding is correct, one could imagine a series of concentric circles. The local development scheme would be the largest, because that is the all-encompassing scheme. The local development documents would be in the next circle and finally, the local development plan documents would be the smallest circle—the kernel. If I am correct, that is a sketch of what is in the Government's mind. Quite why we need all those documents and plans, when we could have just one plan to be adopted, revised, revoked and all the other things that the clause allows for, I cannot imagine.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would insert into the Bill what might be contained in the documents. We feel that it is a key point that generation of employment in an area—its economic well-being and prosperity—should be a material matter to be considered. That is covered by the suggested new paragraph (g) that amendment No. 42 would insert in subsection (2). Our proposed new paragraph (h) would insert a reference to the role played by an area in the economic and social life of the nation. We are much more sensitive to social activity and social inclusion than we used to be. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us at what stage in the development of the plans that issue will be considered.

Finally, amendment No. 43 would insert a new paragraph (c) in subsection (3), relating to the effect that relevant changes would be likely to have on the economic and social development of the nation, or on

its planning and development. It is intended to deal with those two matters together. We need a little bit more certainty. The quote that I read out from the CBI shows that businesses are concerned about the uncertainty in this area of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to show how this complex area of the Bill will work. The Bill will have failed entirely if it does not produce a faster, more comprehensive result than the previous system.

One of the criticisms of the present system is that structure plans, unitary development plans and local development plans take too long to produce. It would have been possible to come up with a mechanism for speeding up the preparation of those plans under the present system, but the Government have decided to rip up the entire present system and introduce an entirely new, complex one. If the Bill results in a slower, more complex, less tidy result, it will have failed. That is the real challenge. The Bill has to stand the test of time. I predict that this area of the Bill will fail and that we will shortly be returning to amend it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall talk about amendments Nos. 87 and 178 in particular. Broadly speaking, the amendments attempt to achieve the same thing. I prefer the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to

''the historic environment of the area'',

to amendment No. 87, which refers to

''the historic sites and monuments of the area''.

I am not an expert on drafting amendments, but I think that our wording is probably better.

The amendments are intended to create a statutory basis for sites and monuments records. The current problem is that local authorities hold sites and monuments records voluntarily; there is no statutory duty. The records are used in the planning process; they are consulted to establish whether plans to build houses or roads will affect historic sites. There is great public interest in such matters. After all, this is the era of ''Time Team'', which involves Tony Robinson being filmed running around fields digging things up. There is much more interest than there used to be, and perhaps now is the time to put the sites and monuments records on a statutory footing. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some thought to how that might be achieved, as the amendments might not represent the route that should be chosen.

Sites and monuments records serve two purposes. First, they assist the planning process—that is understandable—and secondly, they provide a local archive that can be consulted by researchers and members of the public. The records serve a double purpose. The fact that they are non-statutory means that they are often under-resourced and that quality varies considerably around the country. Some local authorities maintain excellent sites and monuments records; frankly, others do not do that to the same extent.

Changes to the county structure and the shifting of powers to the regional level make the matter more pressing. The need to consult the records must be put into statute because the planning tier at the regional

level will not hold those records. There should be a requirement to check the sites and monuments records, and local authorities should have to maintain those records to a certain standard. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not necessary and that there are safeguards elsewhere, but I would like him to address the key issue of how the requirement can be introduced on a statutory basis. It may well be that the Bill is not the best way of doing that and that it could be done through regulation or some other means. However, there is a weakness in the current system and a danger, as we move towards a regional tier of planning, that that weakness might lead to problems. This is the first time since I have been involved in politics that my degree in mediaeval studies has been remotely useful, proving that if one waits long enough, anything can happen.

I follow the reasoning behind the other amendments. I hope that the Minister will address them. It is interesting that amendment No. 44 was not touched on. It requires the planning authority to keep under review those matters in subsections (2) and (3) rather than the word ''may''. I was half expecting the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to make more of that amendment; it is very worthy. The historic environment is key. I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will be considered, if only to ensure that he does not find himself—I am sure that he would not wish to do so—with Tony Robinson beating a path to his door and wanting to know why the Government have created a situation in which many of our historic sites could be unintentionally destroyed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have listened carefully to the debates about the monuments and agree with what is being said. However, for the moment, I should like to move on to amendments Nos. 40 to 44. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are a pair—I think of them as the Heathrow amendments, as the Committee will hear shortly. I shall deal first with amendment No. 40. Clause 12(2)(e) details what is included and then states that

''any other considerations which may be expected to affect those matters''.

I have no quarrel with that. It seems sensible to include considerations that will affect the list. The Government recognise at the beginning of subsection (2) what those matters include; there is no attempt to say that paragraphs (a) to (d) represent an exhaustive list of matters to be considered, it just says that they are some of them. Therefore, amendment No. 40 deals with an important point: subsection (2)(e) should say ''any other considerations that may be expected to affect those, or other relevant matters'', to make it clear that the considerations can go beyond that list. The Minister might say that that is not necessary. If he wishes to debate whether the amendment adds anything, I shall be grateful, because I think that it strengthens a weak area of the Bill. He might not believe this, but it is after lunch and I am trying to be helpful. The amendment would improve the Bill rather than weakening it.

Amendment No. 41 is a different matter. It seeks to delete subsection (2)(f). I know that we have discussed

the issue before, so I shall not rehearse the entire case. However, I shall never be happy to read that the Secretary of State is being given powers to prescribe what can be considered. So far as I am concerned, the purpose of primary legislation is for Parliament to say what is appropriate. We are debating paragraphs (a) to (d), and in a moment we shall come to two other amendments. Whatever the complexion of the Government, in the end there will be a parliamentary majority for the Bill, and that will say what should be considered. It strikes me as entirely wrong in a democracy to say that notwithstanding the fact that we have considered all sorts of facts, and notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has expressed its will about what should be considered, we shall enable the Secretary of State to say what is right and wrong.

Notwithstanding any of that, if the Secretary of State has powers to prescribe, he can say, ''I know that it says in the Bill that you are going to consider the size, composition and distribution of the area, but I say that you are not going to consider that because it suits my fancy.'' That is not democratic, so subsection (2)(f) should not be included. It gives powers to the Government. I tread carefully rather than use the jackboot phrase, but I think that the Minister gets a sense of where I am coming from.

On amendment No. 44, I appreciate that there are those who consider that anyone who would debate ''must'' and ''may'' is pedantic. I do not think that I can be accused of that. Subsection (4) states:

''The local planning authority may also keep under review and examine matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) in relation to any neighbouring area''.

I think that it jolly well should, rather than may, if it wants to. That is important. I use the example of Heathrow airport. Other regions may take a view on aircraft noise, but they should not be told that they may consider the implications for my region of taking a hostile stance towards Heathrow airport. I think that they must. The Government are right to say that regions should be invited to consider, but should go one stage further and say that they must do so in all circumstances. Considering does not dictate what the decision will be, it simply means that regions must think about the matter. Therefore, I commend amendment No. 44 to the Government.

I turn to amendments Nos. 42 and 43. I shall do my level best to keep in order when referring to Heathrow airport. It serves as the best example to support my points. Amendment No. 42 would add subsection, or whatever the correct title is, (2)(g). It would ensure that the principal generation of employment was included. It is easy enough for the Government to say that subsection (2)(a) refers to the principal economic characteristics, but that does not go far enough. The principal economic characteristic of my part of what the Government want to call the south-east of England is that it has a big airport in it. The fact that that is an economic factor is not sufficient when drawing up strategic policies. It is an economic consideration that generates, at a conservative estimate, 120,000 jobs. Its power of job generation as

well as the characteristic of it being an airport is the example that I would use.

I perceive a distinction between principal economics and the economic generation of employment. I raise that because at a strategic level, the generation of employment can easily fly in the face of matters such as environmental considerations. Policies are drawn up concerning environmental protection or the protection of ancient monuments, which is relevant to the Heathrow debate on runways because listed buildings are involved. I understand why people want us to consider the heritage of the country, but when thinking about strategy we should remember that the generation of jobs is often as important as the protection of ancient monuments. I realise that that will mark me out as a philistine, and I imagine that my mailbag will become larger due to certain pressure groups.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman should not lose sight of the fact that protecting the historic environment can create jobs. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and I share the Ironbridge gorge area as part of our constituencies. About 20 or 30 years ago, people barely considered it a historic site, but it is now a world heritage site that contributes dramatically to employment in the Ironbridge area. Perhaps the hon. Member for Telford has the figures. Clearly, concern for the historic environment led to an economic rebirth in an area that was largely derelict 30 years ago, Ironbridge has become one of the most desirable places to live in. The hon. Gentleman should take account of that example.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My prediction was true: I have not yet received the letters, but I have had a telling off from someone with a legitimate point of view. I do not dispute the importance of heritage, but sometimes economic and employment generation is so crucial that in some places—not Ironbridge, where jobs can be created and the heritage preserved—it takes precedence over it. In certain circumstances, decisions about aviation could lead to the closure of Heathrow airport, and if that were to happen it could put 100,000 jobs at risk. I am gently suggesting that in debates about the historic heritage and monuments around the Hounslow heath area—now the airport—a different balance might need to be struck between jobs and heritage buildings. That is not a general observation, but we must not overlook the fact that the generation of jobs per se can become the most important of all the driving forces.

I know where I stand if I have to choose between protecting the jobs of my constituents—their future prosperity and their mortgages—and two or three listed buildings. I hope that I do not have to make that choice, but I may have to. We should not tie planners' hands behind their backs by saying that the generation of jobs should be singled out as crucial, but that consideration should be added to the list to demonstrate that, in certain circumstances, it should be placed alongside all the other factors. I go no further than that.

Amendment No. 42 would also add paragraph (h)—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to intervene on my hon. Friend before he moves on from historic sites. My amendment is designed not to make the preservation of the historic site paramount in every case, but to build a statutory basis into the Bill so that preservation becomes one of the matters that has to be considered in planning applications. Sometimes historic sites are unique: once destroyed, they can never be put back again, which is why we should consider our heritage carefully, albeit in the context of overall economic development.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that I am not shifting policy in an unfavourable direction. If he were to press his amendment about monuments to a Division, I would be delighted and would enthusiastically vote with him. I would not dissent from anything said by my hon. Friend or by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I have simply provided an example of where other considerations could be more powerful than the ancient monument. I repeat that I draw no general conclusions and that I am not setting policy in general terms. I merely flag up in proposed subsection (2)(g) that the generation of employment can be crucial in specific cases. One has only to see the London docks or visit the pool of London for a meal and drink in the evening to discover what happens when economic factors and job generation are not considered. I do not want to see Heathrow become like London docks. It is an important strategic matter that we should try to take into account.

Amendment No. 42 would also insert proposed subsection (2)(h), whereby one of the considerations should be

''the role played . . . in the economic and social life of the nation.''

Let us continue to use Heathrow airport as an example. Both a strategic and a local case could be made that regional interests point in a particular direction. For example, local and regional arguments might suggest that it would be better to site runways somewhere else—whether Stansted, Gatwick or somewhere on the Kent coast.

In specialist, major job-creating cases, overarching national, economic and social issues often apply. It may surprise the Minister to hear me talk about social issues, as he might view social engineering as his business, but that is not necessarily right. It could be argued that in the regional context, we need only move runways, motorways or whatever somewhere else and all would be well. However, if a decision were taken, either in the regional or local interest, to put the runway somewhere else, the national argument would be that ignoring the case for Heathrow by opting for Stansted amounted to exporting jobs, opportunities and possibilities for British business to Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam. In other words, in taking such decisions, the national considerations go way beyond the regional ones.

The purpose of adding subsection (2)(h) is to flag up that national economic and social considerations will

sometimes be so affected by a decision that, notwithstanding good regional and local arguments, planners must be made to consider the national good. It may be unpalatable, but it is appropriate in certain circumstances.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend adduces an interesting argument. Does he accept that one of the main reasons for the length of the terminal 5 inquiry was that the Government had not drawn up an airport strategy for the country? Would it not be better for these wider economic issues—particularly affecting airports, but also ports—to be considered in the round under a national strategy, which would avoid the sort of planning arguments that my hon. Friend mentions?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

One certainly could debate the Government's inability to produce a national strategy for aviation, but going down that road might be judged out of order. I agree with my hon. Friend without subscribing to his view about what happened in the terminal 5 planning inquiry. I believe that the amendment applies to what happened. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, every head-in-the-sand anti-person who wanted to say, ''No, not in my back yard'' was allowed to run rampant across the planning system, adduce all the arguments in the list and declare that everything was dreadful. The net result was that the delays to T5 caused an enormous amount of damage to my constituency's economy. I fear that we may yet discover that they have caused an enormous amount of damage to the nation's economic, social and leisure interests. The amendment flags up the overarching interests of the nation—almost underpinning a strategy, if it is there.

As is now becoming clear, I make myself unpopular in certain quarters by arguing that. All that I shall say in my own defence is that I have espoused those views in my constituency over four elections, and I have been re-elected. I have made those comments about the economic interests of my constituency over four elections and I have never been attacked by the local Labour party, or by the local Liberal Democrats. From that I conclude that the majority of my constituents think in the same terms. That sometimes puts us at odds with all the fashionable planning arguments.

I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of what I am saying. If the way in which I have worded it does not appeal to him, he might like, between now and Report, to strengthen the Bill in another way and add to the list in subsection (2), which at present has paragraphs (a) to (d). The Minister should table other amendments if he will not accept mine.

Amendment No. 43 continues the train of thought and would add a paragraph (c) to subsection (3). Again, I want to bring in the overarching arguments of the changes involved. The amendment relates to the effect that such changes are likely to have on the area and the planning of that area. Again I use Heathrow as the example.

In a debate about runways, which is a hugely strategic and social issue in, say, the south-east of England, one could argue that, if there were a need for X number of additional runways, the requirement

could be met by putting them anywhere. One could then argue that the extra runways in the south-east region had been built—fine; that is what the Bill says. However, the changes that will follow from that decision are crucial. If one decides to put runways there, one must ask oneself what the result will be. If nothing is done to add to capacity at Heathrow, the net result will be a major decline in business at Heathrow or its closure. To develop that argument would be to try your patience, Mr. Pike, so I shall not do so, but if anybody does not accept what I say, I shall be happy to explain afterwards why the decisions on runways could have the most catastrophic effect on Heathrow.

It may be thought that what I am saying is unnecessary and not relevant to the Bill. It is nearly impossible to engage the public and the experts in the argument about the impact of the changes in economic terms. What will happen to the environment, noise, pollution or house prices is readily debated, but it is difficult to move the argument on to the economic effects of decisions.

The Bill focuses debate on the impact of change on the region. As I said earlier, my argument in support of including the nation in that is that the changes that follow decisions taken about runways in, for example, the south-east will be national changes. Indeed, they will be changes internationally. The experts who draw up the plans and try to weigh up the impact must, even at a regional and local level, ask themselves, if they want to put a runway here or there, or a motorway here or there, or whatever it may be, what the impact of such huge infrastructure projects will be on the nation.

In the example that I cite, a decision to undermine the success and the future of Heathrow would have the national effect of moving much of the aviation business out of the United Kingdom. That would have a major impact on other regions, on the prosperity of the country and on the public's opportunities to fly freely to wherever they wish. Therefore, amendment No. 43 would extend the criteria to be used when considering change well beyond regional issues to national issues.

I have focused on Heathrow purely because it is a constituency matter for me. I am conscious that a single example does not necessarily make my point. I could use other examples, but that would again try your patience, Mr. Pike, and that of the Committee. I am sure that I have said enough to explain what I am trying to achieve. I readily accept that I am not a parliamentary draftsman or a lawyer and that there could be far better ways of achieving what I want to achieve. However, I hope that we shall end up with a better Bill with some changes, because the Minister will at least have got the drift of my argument, even if he does not like the detail of it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

A dilemma faces all of us who seek to promote, draft or approve legislation: we are trying to do two contradictory things. First, we want any measure that we wish to see on the statute book to be as simple and short as possible, so that our constituents can recognise it and accept what we are about. On the other hand, to avoid

vagueness and creating a goldmine for lawyers, we must necessarily go into detail and complexities. The Bill is a classic example.

I hope that you will not feel that I am straying from the issue, Mr. Pike, but I shall be brief. Let us suppose that we want to pass a law that forbids people spitting on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath. It is necessary that in that legislation we explain or define what spitting is, what the Queen's highway is and which day the Sabbath is. I hope that that is not a flippant way to put the dilemma, but makes it easy to understand.

Most of the amendments under discussion result from the authorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, and the more I listened to him, the more I agreed with what he is trying to do. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England has reminded us—I am speaking mainly to amendment No. 87—historic sites and monuments are non-statutory. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the recording and protection of those sites and monuments in the sites and monuments register is voluntary. I believe that it is timely now, and the Bill gives us an opportunity, to make those sites and monuments statutory. I agree completely with him on that.

We have a system of protecting buildings—the listed buildings system. It is worth recording that a building can qualify to be listed in a certain grade on its historic as well as its architectural merits. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that monuments can be protected. I know that gateposts can be. Therefore, the listed building concept goes wider than simple structures or buildings.

I agree with the CPRE that it would be timely if the Bill gave a statutory basis to historical sites and monuments. The first example of a cast iron bridge in the world at Ironbridge must surely be listed, but the hon. Member for Ludlow is right to say that it must be seen in the context of its site.

I would also like to draw attention amendment No. 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The two paragraphs in amendment No. 42, which my hon. Friend also tabled, should be added to paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2). That would be eminently sensible. The Minister might say that there is a limit to the number of things that we can include—I have some sympathy with that view—and he may think that paragraph (e) will cover everything. It says:

''any other considerations which may be expected to affect those matters''.

Most of what I was going to say has been said by previous speakers, but I wanted to ask whether there is a need for paragraph (f). The Government have to trust local planning authorities to decide what is important, significant and germane in their area. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State needs subsection (2)(f) to be included, and I would be interested if the Minister could say why that measure is necessary.

As I have said, although we need to spell out in more detail some of the provisions that we hope to put into the Bill, we should embrace any opportunity to make the Bill shorter, simpler and not unnecessarily long.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend makes a clear and cogent case, as always. Does not he think that what he is saying is all the more important because the clause is basically just a statement of general principles? When we come to discuss later clauses that deal with the details of drawing up the plans, we will find that the Secretary of State has huge prescriptive powers on what those plans are to include. However, this clause just gives general principles. Surely the local planning authority should have powers to decide what general principles it will follow?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend says it all. He is absolutely right.

I would be interested if the Minister could say why the paragraph (f) is necessary.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Opposition Members have been ever so slightly timid, and have almost apologised for some of the examples that they have used in development of their arguments. I do not think that any of the examples were remotely out of place or irrelevant. We are perhaps blessed to have the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the Committee, because Heathrow is a good example, and one that I am sure will be referred to in relation to many subjects that the Bill touches on, and it is none the worse for that. The same goes for Ironbridge, and some other examples.

Perhaps surprisingly, I ask the Committee to resist all the amendments in the group, for reasons that I will outline. First, however, last Thursday there was talk of diktat and jackboots; today we have heard about Waterloo, chaos and confusion. Themes are clearly emerging from our sittings. I should be more than happy to present to the Committee, by way of help and guidance, a document called ''Development Plan System: Overview of Current and Proposed New System: What the Bill Does''. It is relevant to part 2 and subsequent parts and is not remotely political or partisan. It sets out as simply as possible what the Bill—including clause 12 on local surveys and subsequent clauses—does.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister may not be aware that I, for one, have that document. I suspect that it was sent to everyone, and I am grateful for that.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I need not comment on that.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is very good, because I told my adviser last Thursday to send out the document. If that will not prevent chaos and confusion in the Cotswolds, there is not much that I can do about it, in terms of seeking help.

The Opposition Members' discussion shows that real tensions permeate through much of the Bill between a host of serious factors that local planning authorities will have to take into consideration. Those

factors might be economic or environmental, as we discussed on Thursday, or might have to do with historic monuments or environments. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments because, in the limited time that I have spent reading and interpreting Bills, I have discovered that, ironically, the greater the specificity in the Bill that surrounds particular duties, the less the flexibility permitted to local authorities.

The list in clause 12(2) is preceded by the word ''include'', so it is not meant to be definitive. It is meant to be drawn as widely as possible so that in the first instance, local planning authorities should be able to determine, within the context of the national planning framework, what to regard as important—I thought that I heard hints that the Cotswold planning authority or others were planning a unilateral declaration of independence, so that they could act completely outwith a national or regional planning framework. We will return to the subject of Heathrow when we come to clause 43, which deals with major infrastructure projects.

On amendments Nos. 87 and 178, the Government fully recognise the importance of historic sites and monuments, the historic environment in our national life, and our obligation to care for them—for our benefit and that of future generations. We also recognise what the hon. Member for Spelthorne meant when he mentioned the tension between the historic dimension and other considerations, not least economic development and jobs.

''A Force for Our Future'', published in December 2001, is the first statement of Government policy on heritage for a generation. It stresses that the historic environment can improve quality of life for all of us through the regeneration of our towns, cities and countryside, encouraging a greater sense of community and greater prosperity. Such regeneration works in the best interests of all concerned.

We fully agree that historic sites and monuments should be kept under review by local planning authorities. However, we do not agree that historic sites and monuments need to be listed in the Bill. Clause 12(2)(a) requires that authorities must keep under review

''the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics''

of its area.

Clearly, the existence of historic sites and monuments form an important part of both the physical and environmental characteristics of the area. Implicit in the clause, as in the Bill in general, is the notion that the Secretary of State has implied powers—we are even discussing the implicit powers of the Secretary of State—to issue guidance. We will certainly include guidance and an update of PPG 12, not least because we need to start including statutory consultees firmly in guidance.

We are already on record as saying that we will make English Heritage a statutory consultee. We anticipate that counties with expertise in dealing with historic monuments and sites will also be statutory consultees. They will look after that dimension. As and when plans such as PPG 12 are re-issued we intend for

there to be a statutory duty for local planning authorities to consult the historic sites register.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hope that I have not interrupted the Minister's flow, but I heard him say that the county councils will be statutory consultees. Will he clarify that by telling the Committee whether that would happen only in relation to historic buildings and monuments? Of which part of the system—the local development scheme, the local development documents or the local development plan documents—will the county councils be statutory consultees?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall certainly return to that point. PPG12 will explicitly say that local or planning authorities have to consult the historic sites register. We intend to cover that and other matters in guidance through the revision of PPG12, which is the guidance specific to developing plans. I shall return to the consultee point, but I shall now go through the other matters.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The issue that the Minister has passed over is that sites and monuments registers are currently voluntary. They are not a statutory duty of the councils and therefore they vary throughout the country in how complete they are and how well they are drawn up. One of the arguments for putting that in the Bill is to enforce some degree of statutory obligation through the system—rather than saying that it is a duty to look at the register or to consult people who might look at the register, which is effectively the arm's-length approach—so that the records become a statutory part of the planning process, which they are not at the moment.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

To all intents and purposes, the three or four measures that I have outlined in terms of amendments Nos. 87 and 178 are guaranteed to be dealt with in that fashion. I resist the fixation on treating something less than seriously unless it is explicitly in the Bill. If that were the case, the 20 or 30 copies of the Bill piled before me would be one Bill. I also resist getting lost in legalistic irony, but the greater specificity there is in a Bill, the more wriggle room we will give to those who seek to abuse our environment, historic or otherwise. Such cases end up in the courts, which use definitions of what is historic, what is a monument and what is consultation.

If we set guidelines and strengthen the statutory consultation process with groups such as English Heritage, the duty imposed on people by PPG 12 will not mean that they should consult the historic sites and monuments register if they get a minute; it will be a binding statutory duty to consult the register to see whether it is germane to any development or application. Far from wanting further to diminish the position of our historic environment, we take very seriously the concerns about it, and we seek to resolve problems. The underlying theme of the issues that I have raised on amendments Nos. 87 and 178 is also to be found in the other amendments.

I am loth to mention Europe, short of including in the Bill a list of impending directives or idiotic directives that may apply in 10 years. For better or worse, we live within a European framework, and that

is at least one of the elements implied by clause 12(2)(f), which refers to

''such other matters as may be prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) may direct.''

We are concerned about achieving good flexibility at the local level, so that planning authorities can, within the national framework, respond to their circumstances through their local development documents. We want consistency throughout the system, when it starts to bed down.

Amendment No. 40 seeks to ensure that all relevant matters are considered which may be expected to affect the development of the local authority area or the planning of its development. I agree with the intention behind the amendment, but it is entirely unnecessary. Clause 12 (1) imposes a general duty on a local planning authority to

''keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area or the planning of its development.''

That can include matters that do not directly affect the development of an area or its planning, but which can affect a matter that does affect that development or its planning. Therefore, it is unnecessary to set out separately a requirement to keep under review ''any other relevant matters'' because that is already encompassed in the general duty.

I am a legislator—for good or bad—and I am not a lawyer, but I believe that specificity further weakens a general duty. If a general duty is defined broadly and it is subsequently interpreted in a range of ways on one's own terms, as the relevant aspect of public policy is implemented, that is far better than having a definitive statement in a Bill that is loaded with specificity and gives legal room to all and sundry—and we know who all and sundry are in this context.

Amendment No. 41 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe or direct additional matters that specifically must be kept under review; I referred to that in the European dimension. I do not understand the intention behind the amendment. Although clause 12(1) sets out a general duty, we have sought to identify particular matters that should be kept under review by a local planning authority. I am loth to say that there is nothing sinister or devious in this, but that is the case. The power is not intended to allow the Secretary of State to impose unreasonable burdens on local authorities, but rather to ensure that there is consistency. There are matters that need to change over time as circumstances change: many of them will be covered by subsection (2), but others may not, and this power seeks to ensure that they will be covered.

Amendment No. 42 seeks to specify two additional matters that are important, but they are encompassed in a more efficient way in the broader sweep of subsection (2)(a).

Amendment No. 43 would require a local planning authority to make an assessment of the possible effect of changes that the authority thinks may take place in

any other matter on the economic and social development of the nation or the planning of such development. It is a strange amendment, although the arguments in favour of it were made well. Local planning authorities are under a duty to plan for their area rather than for the economic and social development of the nation. As a result, their focus is local rather than national.

It is not for Spelthorne, Hillingdon, Hounslow or any of other Heathrow-focused authority to seek to determine how national aviation policy, or any other national policy, is to be implemented or to seek to prejudge that policy. It would therefore be inappropriate for the local development documents of Spelthorne or Hillingdon to say categorically that there should be a new runway at Stansted or Gatwick in the interests of national aviation policy.

That would be as ludicrous as my London borough of Harrow—which is relatively close to Heathrow—suggesting that it would be in the interests of the burghers of Harrow if there were three more runways at Prestwick and one at Manchester, and that whatever Swampy says does not matter. The local focus should prevail, and although the national dimension must be taken on board, that must be done within the national framework of planning and of other matters that are germane, such as aviation policy.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

We are slightly at cross-purposes. The amendment does not seek to imply that the regional or local considerations of such authorities should lead them to pronounce on national policy. There is a distinction between having views on a national policy and saying that when making a local or regional policy one must take account of its national impact. There is a fundamental difference between what I hope that I have been saying and what the Minister is saying. I entirely agree with his comments on whether national policy should be made regionally.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In broad terms, that is the legal import of the amendment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and may or not agree with some of it, but it does not concern the thrust of the amendment, which is closer to my suggestion about Spelthorne coming up with a national aviation policy. I may be with the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the broad thrust of his argument, but what this amendment does is different, which is partly why I will resist it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Minister respond to my point on statutory consultees and county councils? I am sorry if I have jumped in during discussion of issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, but the Minister said, in relation to historic sites and monuments, that he will consider whether to include PPG 12 in the development plan guidance. Is the Minister planning to amend or update PPG 15, which relates to planning and the historic environment, and PPG 16, which relates to archaeology and planning? Is the current system working well? If not, does the Minister plan to update those two particular PPGs?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

PPGs 15 and 16 will be updated in due course. In the planning Green Paper, we are committed to reviewing fundamentally all current PPGs. Both 15 and 16 work well. They spring from the existing PPG 12 rather than from what we are seeking to do now. Will they be updated and revised as a consequence of anything in the Bill? I suspect that the answer is no. However, plans will be developed in revised guidance, and if PPGs 15 or 16, or any other PPGs, need to be revised because of the final shape and form of the Bill, they will be.

I will come back to the hon. Member for Cotswold's point about county councils after discussing the last amendment in the group. I do not apologise for the delay, because these points are important. What we say about surveys now, and during our discussion of the next clause, as a prelude to discussions of LDV and LVF—and I assure hon. Members that I will come back to those acronyms—is worth dwelling on.

Amendment No. 44 requires a local authority to

''keep under review and examine the matters . . . in relation to any neighbouring area''

that may affect their area. Clause 12 makes that provision discretionary, for the good reason that it may be unnecessary for the authority. For example, when a large-scale development is taking place in a neighbouring authority area, that authority may have undertaken detailed work on its likely impact. Other authorities may then have access to that work. It would therefore be a waste of resources to require an authority to undertake its own work.

I have already been accused of being urban-centric. Simply because I was born and brought up in a place with no town or parish councils, I have been accused of being completely ignorant about town and parish councils. I hasten to say that I am not. However, I want to pursue an urban example.

The Kenton road is a lovely road that separates Brent and Harrow. Brent is the transport authority. If there is any significant development on either side of the road, the authority on that side of the road will take the lead. Fairly recently, there was a major supermarket development on the Brent side. Brent and Harrow council officers worked closely together, informally, and produced detailed documents that underpinned the ability of Brent officers fully to consider the application. The councils worked together but the documents were Brent documents. That kind of work would be perfectly acceptable under clause 12.

If amendment No. 44 were accepted, however, the Harrow officers would have to generate documents separately and independently, because the development would clearly have an impact on their area. The road is barely the width of this room. Having compulsion rather than discretion would be inappropriate. Hon. Members will know of other cases where two, three or four local planning authorities may well work together. To require all the LPAs to carry out detailed work to see how a development would impact on their area would clearly be inappropriate. Discretion is required.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On amendment No. 44, I would agree with the Minister if the word ''detailed'' were in the clause; it is not. The amendment would not require lengthy, detailed work to be done; it would just require the authority to consider the matter. If the necessary consideration were to mean reading the documents produced by Brent and saying, ''These are very wise. That is exactly what we would have done. We have considered them and we support them'', I do not think that that is excessive or unreasonable.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Far be it from me to undermine the hon. Gentleman—he has his draftmanship skills—but that is not the important thrust of the amendment. The use of the word ''must'' means that discretion is absolutely removed.

I do not wish to return to part 1, but I must explain that county councils will be statutory consultees for revisions of RSSs, and for preparations and revisions of all development plan documents. That will be made explicit in regulations. I am mindful of the fact that I have not done this today, and I apologise to the Committee, but as soon as I can I shall produce a route map for the secondary legislation associated with the rest of part 2 and subsequent parts of the Bill, as we did for part 1. I appreciate that that is easier for people—[Interruption.] If hon. Members already have one, I may be apologising unnecessarily. We feel that many of the genuine concerns are either covered explicitly in the wording of the clause, or will be covered by revised guidance, although I accept what the hon. Member for Cotswold said.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the Minister as he races ahead, but I admire the way that he is performing. I recognise that it is difficult for him to keep up with some of the points that we make in our contributions and in moving amendments.

Amendment No. 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, would leave out subsection (2)(f). I asked whether the Minister could explain why it is necessary for that to be included in the Bill. Although I do not expect him to give me an answer now, will he undertake to examine that point and consider carefully both my suggestion and my hon. Friend's amendment? Perhaps we could return to that matter on Report.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman may feel that that was the lamest of examples, but it is not for me or anyone else to prescribe, predict or indicate what the next round of European directives will bring in the next five or 10 years. That example was precisely what we had in mind. If I am able to come up with more substantive examples on, or a greater raison d'etre for, that subsection, I will happily do so, but the hon. Gentleman must understand the caveat, ''if I am able''.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I could respond to what the Minister said about all the amendments that I moved, but I will not because I am conscious of the time. I am also conscious that if I were to speak about the Minister's comments on Europe in respect of amendment No. 41, I would undoubtedly stray. Before you stop me, Mr. Pike, and before I say things that the official Opposition preferred that I did not say, I will refrain

from testing your patience, except to say that amendment No. 41 is good and ought to be accepted. I will leave it at that. I pass on amendment No. 44, except to say that I do not accept the Minister's justification for urging his colleagues to resist it.

I return, albeit briefly, to a substantial point regarding amendment No. 43 which was not ventilated either by me or the Minister, but which is fundamental to the debate. The Minister said that having listened to me, he had some sympathy with the argument that I was developing, which was that the wording of the amendment would achieve the exact opposite. To paraphrase what he said: the wording would not achieve what my argument was seeking to adduce. If that is so, I readily accept that my amendment is defective. I happily take that because I am more than content for the Minister to say that he would be willing to consider sensible wording at a later date. Given that he said that he sympathises with my arguments, I sincerely hope that he will have taken drafting advice before we discuss the Bill on Report and have found a formula that would achieve my aim.

In explaining his opposition to amendment No. 43, the Minister let slip in passing his observation that the decision about where to place a runway in the south-east of England was a national, not regional, matter, and that surely we would not expect the region to make such a decision. I had not contemplated that when preparing for the debate, but I have thought about it subsequently. A decision about a runway is not something that the Government should make in isolation, just as the Minister argues that it would be wrong for the region to decide on a national issue. It is possible to argue sensibly that it is wrong for the Government to make a regional decision, except in co-operation with the region that is affected.

That was the first part of my thought process when I contemplated what the Minister said. We shall need to check the Bill to see whether it covers that point. If the hon. Gentleman were right, he will have reinforced my concern about the Bill. No sensible Government would make a decision about a runway that affects a region without the greatest amount of consultation and co-operation with the region concerned. At present, when the region considers a runway issue—even if it were not making the decision—it would still be bound by the Bill in the consultation exercise that it enters into. When the Government say what they think should happen, the regional input will be controlled by the Bill, which sets out what the region can consider. In a debate in which the Government are taking the lead on the whole issue of where the runway goes, the region is much more likely to become parochial and forget the national consideration. It will be debating the matter with the Government, who, it will be presumed, are taking care of national considerations, and the region will be encouraged to be become more regional parochial in its arguments.

Even when the region is the only the consultee, it—as well as the Government—should be required under

the Bill to consider the national interest. Perhaps the Minister was right to say that the matter was a national, not regional, issue, but that does not undermine the spirit of my argument.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

All I said in the context of whether the amendment was appropriate to the local development documents of the local planning authority does not change the interrelations between national planning policy, aviation policy and the other elements to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Far from decisions being imposed from above in the national interest, I am loth to say, given his experience of terminal 5 and Heathrow that such decisions about local needs and impacts will be handled through a planning inquiry.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I stress that I am not seeking to disagree with the Minister just for the sake of it, but he has opened up an issue that I do not have my mind around. It is relevant. Even if amendment No. 43 were defective, the hon. Gentleman has given us another reason why we should revisit the provisions of the Bill to make sure that, when the region is the consultee on issues that have the most powerful regional and local implications, the way in which the region and the local planning authority are required to respond takes into account the national interest.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend will know that one of the proposals of the prestigious Town and Country Planning Association is that there should be an England spatial plan along the lines of that in the Principality under the powers delegated to the National Assembly for Wales. Does he think that part of the problem that he is addressing might be resolved if we moved an amendment to suggest that there should be an England spatial plan?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I would need notice of that question. I am having sufficient difficulty getting my mind around what the Minister has been saying, let alone that. The suggestion would open up the whole debate about a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, which would certainly have me ruled out of order. The only region other than London that England is capable of being put into is the region called England, and to that extent I accept what my hon. Friend said.

I return to the Minister's points. I hope that he and his officials will reflect on the subject that he opened up. I shall try to give an example of what worries me about the current system. There is a debate about runways in the south-east. The choice of runways for the south-east implies that we are considering a regional issue because other regions have other runways. Under the current system in which the Government take the lead, the spectacle involving the consultation document means that every local planning authority and every county planning authority in the south-east says, ''Yes, we need it, but over there, please, not here.'' The local authorities—the districts or the counties—are not obliged to exercise their minds on the national interest. They may say simply, ''The Government are trying to do this, but we are here solely to represent the local interest against that of the nation.'' That is what worries me, and it is the issue that the Minister opened up. I am grateful to him for doing that but we will

have to think long and hard between now and Report about how we address it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adducing the argument on amendments Nos. 178 and 40 to 43 in such detail. I do not intend to comment further on them.

I would like to say one thing about amendment No. 87, which relates to historic sites. I led the Minister into a little trap, which he fell into nicely, by encouraging him to issue extra guidance on historic sites. I draw his attention to his Department's document ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change''. Paragraph 4.57 says:

''However, there is far too great a volume of national planning policy PPGs on their own run to a total of 852 pages. The sheer amount of guidance imposes a considerable burden on the planning system and reduces its effectiveness as a means of communicating national policy priorities.''

I do not know whether the Minister would like to intervene and tell me whether he agrees with me. Given that the document was written by the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), perhaps the statement has been consigned to history. Perhaps the whole document has been consigned to history because paragraph 4.58 says:

''We think that Government is prescribing too much at the national level the extent of national guidance and the degree of detail in some of it serves only to stifle regional and local flexibility. Furthermore . . . much guidance is insufficiently focused with little differentiation between statements of policy and advice on process and best practice''.

The paragraph continues:

''the guidance is too prescriptive. Consistency in application of national guidance is valuable but too much prescription does not allow for local circumstance.''

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has been making that point in great detail. The paragraph continues:

''Some planning policies may be better made at regional or local level, rather than set nationally''.

We all say amen to that. The problem is that what the Minister and, especially, the Bill say are contrary to what is said in the Green Paper, which was a consultation document that received many replies. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister, who shakes his head.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I suspect that it does not say that at all. If the hon. Gentleman reads on, the document says:

''To that end, we propose to . . . review all PPGs'',

which I said that we would. Some we will review as a consequence of this Bill, and some as a consequence of the Green Paper. The hon. Gentleman will see at paragraph 4.61 that among the first we will look at are 15 and 16—planning and the historic environment and archaeology—to which he referred. I am still waiting for the trap I am supposed to fall into.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Let us keep to the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We shall wait with great interest to see whether these revised PPG are simpler and more consolidated. We will examine Hansard and what the Minister has said on every aspect of everything that we

have discussed so far in the Bill that will be further enhanced by PPGs and RPGs. I suspect that if he follows to the letter what he has said in Committee, it will be impossible for these new consolidated PPGs to be simpler than the existing ones.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Pike, could I point out that as and where appropriate they will be changed and changed quite starkly into broader strategic policy statements? In some cases where they are very specific and technical, such as the PPG on waste and minerals, they run to a good many pages.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have had a long debate. It is time that we moved on. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept any of our amendments, particularly those on the historic sites. These need to be defined in the Bill. Having said that and in the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

It is the Chair's view under Standing Order No. 68 that we have covered this clause fairly widely. I am not minded to take a stand part debate unless it is extremely brief.

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

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for your stricture and I will do my best to be brief as I always try to do.

It is worth bringing out the extremely important point that the Minister made almost in parenthesis. He said that the county councils would be statutory consultees in the drawing up of the RSSs, in their revision, in the drawing up of local development plans and strategies and the development plan documents. That was an important statement. I am sure that it will be greeted with some relief by those following the debate that those county councils are to be given that power. He said that it would be done by secondary legislation.

In view of the importance of that statement, may I urge the Minister to consider whether that should be put in the Bill? It is so important and fundamental, particularly in relation to the transition from county councils drawing up structure plans to the new plans that are envisaged by this Bill, to prevent haemorrhaging of skilled personnel from county planning departments. The Minister must ensure that that information is widely disseminated among those authorities. I should have thought that the way to do it is by considering amendments on Report or in another place to make sure that those are on the face of the Bill.

I have one other point to make in passing. The clause is a statement of principles. It does not have to be enshrined in any of the plans. I cannot quite see where it fits in the Bill. It is one of those things that the local planning authority has to consider but it does not have to put them into any of the plans or documents. Indeed, it is quite difficult to imagine how some of these things would be put in the local development frameworks, plans and development documents. While

we have had a long debate on the matter, I am still unclear how the clause links into other clauses.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall be brief, Mr. Pike. I just want to say that I very much welcome the clause. It is an integral part of the Bill. The Countryside Agency describes it as a real attempt to see that planning has an integrated approach on the environment and social, economic and employment matters. For too long our planning system has been separated from those other vital measures. As the Countryside Agency says, they were pigeonholed. Although I would like to have seen the clause strengthened in accordance with our amendments, I generally welcome the principle and the policy behind it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If I had to choose between those two characterisations of the clause, I would go with the last one. The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The hon. Member for Cotswold thinks that it is principle, but nothing could be further from the truth. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet says, it is integral to all that flows from it in terms of the local development framework and local development documents. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. As I expect you are aware, we are expecting a vote downstairs at 4 o'clock. Would this be a natural point to stop?

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Clause 13 - Survey of area: county councils

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

clause 13, page 7, line 34, leave out from 'area' in line 34 to end of line 35 and insert

'or the planning of its development'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 45, in

clause 13, page 7, line 39, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. How many hon. Members constitute a quorum?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Five people in front of me.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I make the quorum, then.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

No, there are six people in front of me.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

So if my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and I withdrew, we would not have a quorum. That would not be helpful at this stage.

The Local Government Association suggested the amendment to us. It is intended to probe county councils' proposed role in surveys for local development purposes and to clarify what is meant by ''a county matter''.

The LGA says:

''County councils currently have a duty to prepare a community strategy to set out a vision for the development of their community. Major services, such as transport, education, waste management and social services are all provided directly by county councils. The government's stated desire is for important service delivery areas to be integrated to solve complex problems and create better outcomes for local people, businesses and the environment.

In this context, a wide monitoring role is essential for the planning and development of core county council services, for the development of county community strategies and successful Local Strategic Partnerships.''

The Government have put great weight on such strategies, and local authorities in my area have spent much time and involved many stakeholders in drawing them up. They are very useful.

The LGA continues:

''County councils have traditionally provided the bulk of the expert contribution and monitoring effort to underpin both regional planning guidance and local plans. Monitoring and policy staff, or the resources for them, do not currently exist at regional or local levels in most areas.

The LGA's view is that the government is taking unnecessary risks with county council monitoring resources and expertise by removing their wider statutory monitoring role and restricting it to purely county matters. The reality is that, under the new system, individual district councils will continue to seek county monitoring support because they might not have the resources or expertise themselves. The danger is that as a result of the government's proposed reforms, county councils will be unable to justify dedicating significant resources for this purpose.

Again, these proposals seem to be driven by the desire to seek clarity of roles in a system with unitary councils under elected regional assemblies, leaving an imperfect and inadequate set of arrangements for the areas retaining the current structure, which is most of the country.''

As I have said before, it is important that we maintain the county strategic role during the transition, because it has been a vital part of the planning function in this country. If the message from the Committee and the Government is that the Bill will diminish and reduce the importance of that function, county councils' skill base will disappear.

I am critical of several things that Gloucestershire county council does, but strategic planning is not one of them. I know several of the council's strategic planning officers, and they have considerable expertise and perform an especially valuable function in my area. We have a large area of outstanding natural beauty and we have conservation areas. There are many listed buildings and minerals considerations. Two motorways run through the county, and there are rail links. It is a strategic area between the south-west and the midlands. Gloucestershire county council performs a valuable role. The amendment to probe county council functions is especially important.

Amendment No. 45 would remove subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) says that

''The Secretary of State may by regulations require or (in a particular case) may direct a county council to keep under review''

certain matters. The amendment is designed to delete centralisation by the Secretary of State yet further, because we do not think that that is necessary. Subsection (4), through good drafting, refers back to subsection (3); paragraph (a) says:

''it is immaterial whether any development relates to a county matter''

and paragraph (b) says:

''if a matter which is prescribed or in respect of which the Secretary of Sate gives a direction falls within section 12(4) the county council must consult the local planning authority for the area in question.''

I am not exactly sure what subsection (4) achieves, but no doubt the Minister will tell us. My cursory reading of it indicates that the Bill would be simplified, and the functions and powers of the county council would be more precise, without it, but the Minister will give us a better explanation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view of the amendments. He told us before we resumed our sitting that he had good news for us, so let us hope that he is going to accept amendment No. 122. That would be a first in this Committee, and a real triumph.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The amendments concern county councils' survey functions. I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen carefully, because although I shall not go as far as he wants, I think that I can go at least half way.

Amendment No. 122 would make two changes to subsection (1). It would delete the words

''in so far as the development relates to a county matter''

and insert the words

''or the planning of its development''

in their place. The deletion of that phrase is not acceptable. It might assist members of the Committee if I explain the intention behind subsections (1) and (2), and therefore why the words are necessary. The Bill provides for a county council survey function to underpin the continuing responsibilities of the shire counties for county matters, which are mineral and waste development, in essence. Many tried to dismiss the key functions of mineral and waste development as irrelevant during the debate that preceded this Committee, but they are important, and it is appropriate that counties continue to carry them out.

County councils have to keep the issues that might affect development relating to a county matter, as defined in the clause, under review for

''so much of their area for which there is a district council''.

As part of that duty, a county council must keep under review the matters set out in clause 12(2) and (3), as the hon. Gentleman said. A county council may also keep those matters under review in relation to a neighbouring area if they could affect the county's area. In doing that, the county must consult the appropriate local planning authority. That is important, because county councils will have a duty to prepare mineral and waste development schemes and, consequently, local development documents under those schemes.

With regard to the second effect that amendment No. 122 would have, there might be merit in including the words

''or the planning of its development''

in subsection (1). Clause 13(1) is intended to be the counterpart to clause 12(1) on local development surveys as regards the continuing responsibility of the shire counties for county matters, and one would expect that if those words are included in clause 12(1), which they are, they should also be included in clause 13(1). I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and I confirm that I am happy to take that issue away for further consideration. I cannot, of course, accept half an amendment, and we would rather the words that the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete stayed in clause 13, but I am more than happy to ensure that the words

''or the planning of its development''

are included, too, as they are in the preceding and complementary clause. That, however, is the extent of the surprise that I promised the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment No. 45 would remove the Secretary of State's power to require a county council to keep under review matters that he specifies and to make the results of the review available to such persons as he specifies. Ironically, rather than adding in any way, shape or form to the planning functions or the planning integrity of county councils—or dealing with the real concerns about the planning skills base at that level, which I share—the hon. Gentleman's amendment, by removing the Secretary of State's ability to broaden the areas that the county council should keep under review in its survey, would have the reverse effect. It would undermine any broadening of the county council's role beyond minerals and waste. I ask him not to press that amendment—in the same spirit as I allowed the other half amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

What with the earlier announcement about the county councils being statutory consultees, and the part acceptance of amendment No. 122, it seems that the Government are beginning to have second thoughts about the role of county councils, which we welcome. Will the Minister say what he has in mind for the regulations mentioned in subsection (3) on broadening the role of county councils? We have not seen the draft regulations, and it would be useful to know.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am happy to do that. Subsections (3) and (4), which amendment No. 45 would delete, are important, for the reasons that I have outlined. They will enable the Secretary of State to make the regulations that the hon. Gentleman referred to—or in particular cases, to issue a direction to require county councils in two-tier areas to keep certain matters under review.

Those matters will sound familiar—we are nothing if not consistent—as they are the principle physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area, the principal purposes for which land is used, the size, composition and distribution of population, and communications, transport systems and traffic. We have already discussed all those key elements, which are at the root of PPG12.

Subsection (4) makes it clear that that function is not confined to county matters, as would be the effect of the half accepted amendment No. 122; it also

imposes a duty to consult if any regulations or directions relate to matters in neighbouring areas.

The powers are necessary as a safeguard when counties are best placed to collect and disseminate certain types of information for their areas—for example, because of economies of scale—but when that would not otherwise occur. As I said earlier, I am happy to consider adding the suggested phrase to clause 13(1)—not least to provide consistency with clause 12(1). In essence, the elements in PPG12 are those that we would seek to use in connection with the references to the Secretary of State.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Minister clarify one other function in which county councils are involved, which is transport? For example, they have a considerable involvement with buses and bus routes. What role will the county council have in transport and in drawing up local transport plans?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I have said, if the Committee rejects amendment No. 45, the broader issues of the transport system—traffic and so on—could be encompassed; the provisions would go beyond the authority's specific planning functions concerning waste and minerals. As far as I am aware, the county councils' current transport functions persist, and there is no intention to diminish their role. In view of the abundant generosity of what I have said, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendments. I promise faithfully to reintroduce at least half of one of them.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Some general issues in the clause go beyond the amendments, so I will not contribute to the debate on them as they would be better raised in a clause stand part debate, unless you disagree, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I will allow a clause stand part debate, but I am mindful not only of our previous debate, but of our remaining business. The Chair must make a judgment in order to make progress, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Pike. This has been a useful and concise debate on an important clause. As half a loaf is better than none, I am grateful for the Minister's concession that he will table amendments on Report to make clause 12(1) consistent with clause 13(1) and include the words of amendment No. 122.

Many people reading Hansard will be extremely grateful for the Government's rethinking of the powers and functions of county councils. That is especially important if it helps to retain skilled personnel in county planning departments. I accept the Minister's benevolence, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Clause 13 is the clearest evidence we could have of a Government struggling with the concept of the county council as they embark on a fundamental review of the planning system based on their beloved artificial regions. It would be better to remove clause 13 from the Bill and start again. The Government have two realistic choices, and thus far they have been prepared to go for neither. County councils must either have a full role, or the Government should get rid of them altogether and deal with local and regional planning authorities. We can not be left with something in between, as clause 13 proposes.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has teased out of the Minister an agreement to review the matter, but even with that improvement, the Bill offers a conundrum and no satisfactory answer. In the light of my practical and academic experience of local government, I can say that the role of the county council is not relevant to the proposal. If there is a role for the county council, in any shape or form, it is a national role. In areas such as Berkshire or the unlamented Avon, there are unitary authorities. I do not dissent from the Government if they are to take the regional route, but it should be perfectly possible for unitary authorities, or whatever the law may call may them—they are smallish by county council standards—to work with regional planners to develop a comprehensive and coherent regional plan. If that is possible in Berkshire, why is it not possible in Surrey? Providing a role for Surrey county council is, to put it mildly, unnecessary; but if that is what is to be done, the same role should be imposed on Berkshire county council. For those reasons, I believe that the provision is muddled; we ought to have either one thing or the other.

There is one good point in involving county councils: I can see a temporary role for the county council in making some sort of democratic contribution in regions that will have not elected assemblies but undemocratically appointed quangos. That could be done until the blessed day when we get rid of the Government and can abolish the regions and relieve the county councils of the role that the Bill would impose on them.

The Government are struggling to make councils into some sort of technical consultees. They are trying to find something for the county to do that is technical rather than mainstream. However, they will soon find that having three tiers of local government leads to chaos and they will have to do something about it. My hunch is that the county councils will go. Let us not treat councils as technical consultees: do one thing or the other.

The Government are entirely wrong here. I am perfectly willing to accept that a unitary authority covers too small an area to be a strategic regional planning authority. However, that is not an argument for the Bill. The regions are artificial. Rather than use the county councils as a mechanism between the small unitary authorities and the regions that the Government are trying to impose, the Government, if they wanted to act sensibly, could streamline a system in which local government could do everything

as a unitary body. There is no reason why local authorities should not co-operate; unitary authorities could be asked to develop a strategic plan jointly rather than have the artificial construct of the county council planning for several authorities or regional authorities planning for everybody.

The Government will discover when they come to enforce these provisions that regionalism and a sense of regional identity have nothing to do with service delivery. Nevertheless, the Government continue to insist through Bills such as this that service delivery is linked to a sense of regional identity. The Government are about to go backwards by imposing a second tier of local government, namely the region, on those areas lucky enough to have unitary local government at present. The Government are treating the region as a layer of local government. They will return to two tiers of local government in some places, and the Bill will enhance it; in other places, they will have three, although they have already admitted that they cannot possibly have three.

The role of the county council envisaged here is doomed to failure. The Government's whole philosophy is wrong, and the clause highlights their dilemma. They instinctively recognise that what they propose will not work, and they are struggling with a tier of local government. They are not prepared to do one thing or the other. I hope that one of these days, sooner rather than later, the Government will see the folly of their ways.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I had a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Spelthorne until he reached the end of his speech. The Government are struggling to resolve how to give power to the unelected regional chambers. In some places—for example, in Shropshire where I come from—that will create a two-tier system. How will the Government deal with that? I agree entirely that clause 13 exists to deal with a conundrum that the Government should ideally not have to deal with. Their long-term strategy is for elected government in all regions. I suspect that by the time they get to that they will have changed the boundaries and the number of regions. However, that is some years off yet. By that stage, there will also be unitary authorities. The county council—the district council in the case of Shropshire—will have gone, becoming a unitary authority. There will then be the planning system that is hoped for, though there will be an interim period that could last at least a decade.

The clause is the Government's admission that there will be a messy period and that they need to get round it. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Spelthorne on regions. I think that regional government can be a step forward if powers are devolved down from this place, rather than up from local government.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

So that the hon. Gentleman does not totally caricature my argument, I tell him that I argued the case that there is no foundation for service delivery, rather than governance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I think that there is a foundation for service delivery. There is a danger of upsetting the

Welsh and the Scots by linking them to the views of English regions. Service delivery in Scotland has benefited from the Scottish Parliament's having control over it, and the same arguably holds for the Welsh Assembly and delivery in Wales. The hon. Gentleman's argument about service delivery is wrong and will eventually be shown to be so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Gentleman is again confusing the issues that I mentioned previously. He has now introduced the concept of federalism, which also has nothing to do with service delivery.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that strong regional government means that we have a federal system in England, though he can call it what he likes. I want strong regional government in England, and I think that the Government's sympathies point in that direction, though they have not yet had the confidence to devolve powers down to the regions, rather than pull them up from the county councils and local authorities

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is now referring to Scotland as a region or a nation?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Scotland is a nation, and will probably always have stronger powers than any region of England. It has a tradition of making law. None of us would say that the regions of England should have the power to make their own criminal law. There are large variations. I do not say that identical regions are needed. There will be one anomaly: English regions will probably have tax-varying roles. The Welsh Assembly will not have similar powers, and will theoretically have fewer powers than the English regions. The Government will have to do something about that in the long run, and give the Welsh Assembly the powers that it deserves.

I shall return to the clause, as I am sure you would like me to do, Mr. Pike. Although the hon. Member for Spelthorne and I have had our little to-ing and fro-ing about regions, I think that he hit on the right issue. The clause is about dealing with a little problem of the Government's to do with where we are now, and where they want to get to. Between now and then, things will be rather messy. I would prefer for the problem to be dealt with by not transferring powers up to the regions until there are elected regional assemblies, which would avoid the need for the clause. The Government could have had a nice tight Bill, maintaining the current system until transferring powers up to the elected regional assemblies once they are. The clause and other provisions in the Bill are necessary because the Government have chosen not to wait until there are elected regional assemblies before transferring the powers. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will be frank about that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Government have produced a helpful document entitled ''Development plan system: Overview of current and proposed new system: What the bill does''. I urge the Minister to keep producing such helpful documents. He has a team of civil servants behind him, and Opposition Members need all the help that they can get.

That document makes it clear that the survey function envisaged in clauses 12 and 13 already exists under sections 11 and 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Clause 12 sets out the survey powers of the local planning authority, and clause 13 sets out the same powers for county councils. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the powers and functions of county councils, but the hon. Member for Ludlow was right to say that there will be a mess during the transitional period. The Bill compounds that mess; it sets out, in clause 12(2), some of the matters that the local planning authority must keep under review, but the equivalent matters for county councils are not included.

In his rather fast speech—I must check Hansard to see what he said—the Minister set out the functions that the county council must consider. It would have been tidier to include that information in the Bill rather than in guidance. After all, if the Minister is prepared to accept an amendment to ensure consistency between the subsections (1) of the two clauses, why will he not ensure consistency between the respective subsections (2)? I am still concerned that the Bill does not make clear the functions of county councils. That will need to be done in guidance, and I hope that it can be done fairly quickly so that we can maintain the expertise available in county councils. There is a great deal to cover in the rest of this part of the Bill, so we should move on. I urge my colleagues to support the clause.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ludlow thinks that the minerals and waste development functions of county councils are some ''little problem'' and not terribly important. He and the hon. Member for Spelthorne seem to think that the clause is just something that we have concocted to get over what has been described as a ''struggle'' with county councils, as if we said, ''Oh my God, what do we do with them while we are in the waiting room between the Bill and the establishment of English regional assemblies?'' In London, where there is substantial duality in the planning system, many boroughs—not all, although they all should have—have agreed that waste should be dealt with not at borough level, but at sub-regional level. Minerals are perhaps less of a problem in London. The notion that these functions are trifling, do not matter and will all be dealt with on a regional basis is nonsense.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

At no point did I say that the functions were mere trifles. Other hon. Members may have implied that, but I certainly did not. My point is that the clause has been included because of the transitional period. If we had gone through the transitional period, there would be no county councils, only a unitary structure throughout England. In the case of a unitary authority replacing the county council in Shropshire, it would continue to deal with waste and minerals, as well as taking up those things currently dealt with by the district council. I am commenting not on those powers, but on the purpose of the clause. It exists only because there will

be a transitional period before we have elected regional assemblies.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I do not think that that is entirely the case. Let us consider London, the one area where there is that split between unitary and regional bodies. Certainly in my borough, a waste strategy could not function adequately if it were not constructed across west London, and that would be more than appropriate under any subsequent model. This is not about second-guessing the form of any subsequent legislation that may come before the House. The purpose of the provision is to do with serious planning functions that need to be carried out. If we accept that those functions must be carried out and that the county councils are the appropriate body to do that, we need surveys of the areas, as outlined in clause 13.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister bracketed me alongside the hon. Member for Ludlow. I should therefore like to make it clear that, on the basis that God, in his wisdom, put Spelthorne on top of gravel, I need no persuading that gravel raising is deeply emotive and important. However, that is not the point. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that it does not necessarily require Surrey county council to deal with gravel-raising issues in my constituency, because Berkshire, immediately next door, where there is no county council, seems to deal with such issues perfectly adequately through the system of unitary authorities.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is a choice, not a function of any transitory stage between now and the advent of elected regional assemblies throughout the country. It was suggested that a group of local planning authorities should jointly produce the regional spatial strategy and that the regional dimension was not needed at all. That is absurd. As I said, we are talking about important functions, and it is more than appropriate that county councils, given their experience and expertise, should carry them out.

Clause 13 is simply a counterpart to clause 12 as regards the continuing responsibility of the shire counties for county matters. I said that we would take on board the notion of planning office development. Clause 13 is very important in relation to the rest of part 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Local development scheme

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in

clause 14, page 8, line 13, after 'authority', insert

', with where it deems appropriate the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority,'.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.