Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2003.

Standing Committee G

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I am delighted that we have moved to another Room, but there seem to be a number of teething problems. Apparently, everything will be put right by the afternoon. Hon. Members will have seen that, because of the heavy Committee work load, the Official Report for the afternoon sitting of Tuesday 14 January will not be available until later today. The Editor of Hansard apologises for that.

I also have to announce that because of an error at the press, amendments Nos. 336 to 351 in the name of Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown appeared twice in the papers issued yesterday. The duplicates have now been deleted.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I am grateful for that clarification; we thought that you might be allowing us to debate everything twice.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

That is wishful thinking, and the Chair will not allow it.Clause 14 Local development scheme

Clause 14 - Local development scheme

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 228, in

clause 14, page 8, line 35, at end insert

'within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 126, in

clause 14, page 8, line 36, after 'direction', insert

'can only be made after a period of 12 months has elapsed following the issuing of a draft direction and after all representations from the local planning authority, other interested parties and the general public have been fully considered at a public enquiry and'.

Amendment No.127, in

clause 14, page 8, line 43, at end insert—

'(d) a timetable for preparing the scheme.'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Amendment No. 228 seeks to ensure that the preparation by a local authority of a local development scheme is not delayed because the authority has to wait for the Secretary of State to decide whether to issue a direction to make appropriate amendments to the scheme. I am sure that the Secretary of State has no intention of ever causing a delay, but we want to include such an assurance.

There are areas in which the Government have imposed time limits on themselves. The Bill introduces a timetable for decisions by the Secretary of State in relation to appeals against decisions on planning applications and the failure of the planning

authorities to take decisions. That is in schedule 2. The idea behind the amendment is that the Government's intention should apply when the Secretary of State is considering whether to direct a planning authority to make changes to its local development scheme. Otherwise, the process will be left in limbo while the authority waits to hear whether it may proceed or whether it must make changes. The amendment is straightforward.

I shall leave the Conservatives to speak to the other two amendments, which are essentially about timing. The purpose of the substantive amendment is to set the Minister a time limit. He might say that eight weeks is not right, and the limit should be 10 or 12 weeks—or even, dare we hope, six weeks. We would welcome an indication [Interruption.]. The Minister is going to disappoint me again, I can see. There was I, thinking that this was a new day, a new dawn—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

A new shirt.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Yes, a new shirt.

I think that I shall leave my argument there.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

All I shall say is that the principle argued by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has my support. The other two amendments would do the same thing. I echo what he has said in that the choice of time limit in amendment No. 126 is, in a sense, arbitrary. I opted for a certain period, and am happy for the Minister to say that he agrees in principle but does not like the period that I have chosen. I shall not go to the stake over it. In my experience, all of our mailbags from time to time contain letters complaining bitterly about the length of time any part of the planning process will take. My experience of the terminal 5 inquiry leads me to conclude that never again should we allow a part of the planning process to have no time limit.

There will always be those who seek to exploit the system to grind things to a standstill and prevent a decision of any sort being taken. At the end of such processes, there comes a point when even the people who were against the plan would rather have a decision in favour than just go on and on with no decision at all. Battle fatigue sets in and the time scale is dreadful. Every time I noted an open-ended system in the Bill, I was tempted to table an amendment stating that there should be a time scale of some sort. Therefore, I support in principle what the hon. Member for Ludlow says.

My amendments are slightly different. Amendment No. 126 follows on from clause 14(4):

''The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.''

Subsection (5) states:

''Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.''

That has to be right. Amendment No. 126 would ensure that the Secretary of State does not arbitrarily give direction to make such amendments as he thinks fit, and then not explain why. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to say, ''I am minded to

instruct you to do this for the following reasons.'' There would then be a period during which public discussion about his amendments could take place. He would have to make the amendments in draft. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so I care not about the niceties of my wording.

In principle, there must be a period after the Secretary of State has decided something should be amended. Instead of simply saying, ''amend it'', the Secretary of State must say, ''I am going to make you do this, but we are going to consult on it first.'' In my amendment, that consultation period is 12 months, but it could be 12 weeks for all it matters. There are two principles behind the amendment. First, there must be some consultation on a direction before it is made, and secondly that period of consultation must be strictly time limited. Amendment No. 126 would ensure that, and if the Minister wants to accept the spirit and the principle of it, I would be delighted with a better wording than the one I have chosen.

Amendment No. 127 would amend subsection (7). The amendment states that the Secretary of State ''may'' set down a timetable. On reflection, if I were able to table it again, I would suggest that he ''must'' do so. I hope that the Minister accepts that the principle is right. There should be some means of saying how long the process will take, and some method of enforcing the time limit.

I return to the terminal 5 example. There was a lot of exhortation to resolve the matter, but there was no timetable. I am sure that at some later point we will discuss whether one can impose timetables. It is perfectly possible to do so because in my experience as a chairman of a planning committee involved in planning appeals, and of being an MP, there rapidly comes a point where objectors become repetitive. After the first 20 per cent. of the time taken by the inquiry, nothing new is produced, but the system goes on and on. I see no reason why we should not have a timetable. If the Minister likes the idea of amendment No. 127, but not the wording, I am not going to the stake over that either.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

This is the first time that I have had the delight of being on a Committee that you are chairing, Mr. Amess. I have noticed that you have the ability to look interested in our speeches; I do not know whether that is the reality. I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has been delayed because of a funeral; he will be here as soon as possible. Today will be lighter because I will spend a lot of time moving cobwebs and trying to get up to speed. I will be using my hon. Friend's notes, and his handwriting is difficult to read—my own is appalling—so the result will be rather intriguing.

I support the amendments, but perhaps from a slightly different angle from my hon. Friend. It is already apparent that local authorities are sitting on their hands and that really concerns me. According to the private building sector, many local authorities that are agin development are waiting to see what comes up. The private building sector especially hates delay,

as do the Minister, his colleagues, and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister. The number of private house-building starts was appallingly low last year and it is not likely to be any better in the coming year. That trend is likely to progress and the Minister should support anything that we can do to speed everything up.

The local development documents are a key part of the clause. That seems straightforward until one turns to clause 22, which we will not be able to discuss because the guillotine will come down with a clang and we will all go home, leaving a good amount of the Bill untouched. Clause 22(2) and (3) make it clear that above all the local authorities is the Secretary of State's inspector. There are two problems with the Secretary of State's inspector. First, he will add to the delay and secondly—this is not strictly relevant, but I hope that a little leeway will be allowed—he will be able to dictate to local authorities. If the Secretary of State's inspector comes up with an arrangement that is not acceptable to the local authority, bearing in mind that the local authority knows its own conditions, position, and local demands, it can reject the inspector's decision, although that is rare. The difficulty with the proposals is that the local authority will have to do what a remote individual dictates. That overrides democracy. I hope that the Minister will give us his reaction because I would love to know his justification. If the amendments are not agreed, it would be sensible for the Minister to accept the principle behind them and to make a change somewhere in the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I too support all three amendments, not least amendment No. 228, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is echoing an amendment put to me by the Law Society, so he has the legal establishment on his side, as well as Conservative Members of Parliament.

The Government have imposed timetables on themselves in relation to certain town and country planning matters. That is welcome for the reasons that my hon. Friends gave. There are good precedents for that, and eight weeks is the right period. If an applicant submits a planning application to his local planning authority and eight weeks pass, he may deem that it is undetermined or that it has not been accepted and he can start the process of appealing to the Secretary of State. If I were a planning consultant, I would not advise an applicant to follow that course because an appeal to the Secretary of State can take many months. However, since the great Town and Country Planning Act 1947, it has been written into law that after an eight-week period, the applicant may conclude that the non-decision can be appealed against.

Then we have another example. I do not want to bore the Committee, but it is important to remember this one. If a planning application is turned down, the applicant has six months to decide whether to appeal against the decision. I believe that that could be reduced from six months to three without any problem. Let us remember that the main objective of the Bill is to speed up the planning system. Therefore,

it is good that amendment No. 228 would insert a time limit of eight weeks. Schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State the right to impose timetables on various parts of what is proposed in the Bill.

I welcome the amendment and hope that the Minister, who I know is generous, will look favourably on it. It will be good for the Government, because it will show that they are serious about ensuring that they play their part in speeding up the planning process, provided that the quality of decisions or the fairness of the system are not affected. To impose the timetable in that way and for that reason would be welcome.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fully accept the reasons why the hon. Member for Cotswold is not here. He had the courtesy to write informing me that he would be absent, for which I am grateful. I am also extremely grateful that the hon. Member for Ludlow has toned his shirt down, so that we do not have to endure the purple of previous occasions.

As hon. Members have said, amendment No. 228 would require the Secretary of State to make any direction requiring a local authority to modify its local development scheme within eight weeks of receiving the scheme. I think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne was being modest as amendment No. 126 would radically curtail the Secretary of State's power to direct a local planning authority to amend its LDS, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. Amendment No. 127 would add an explicit provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe the timetable for preparing the LDS.

As I have explained, the LDS is essentially a project plan. It will set out what local development documents the local planning authority proposes to prepare and what they will cover, in both subject matter and area, and which documents the local planning authority proposes should be development plan documents and which should not. The LDS will also say whether any document is to be prepared jointly with another planning or other authority and will set out the planned timetable for that. The LDS is central to tackling the real problems caused by the current system, which takes more than five years—sometimes as many as 10—to put a plan in place.

We must face the possibility that some local authorities—perish the thought—will propose inadequate local development documents or an unacceptably slow timetable for preparing them. It may help the Committee if I give an example. One document to be included in the LDS is the authority's statement of community involvement, which I hope we shall discuss later. We all want authorities to put their statement of community involvement in place as soon as possible, but we must be able to safeguard local communities in the event that any authority decided to drag its heels in getting its statement ready.

I assure the Committee that the power to direct changes to an authority's LDS would be used only as a last resort. The local planning authority will need to hold discussions on the draft scheme with the relevant Government office at an early stage. Where there are problems—for example if the timetable were

unjustifiably slow—we would expect them to be resolved without having to use the last resort of a direction.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I am afraid that the Minister's speed-reading of his briefs is causing me increasing concern, because hundreds of local authorities throughout the country will refer to the various Government offices, and the offices will refer back to Ministers. The whole timetable has suddenly started to look longer and longer. Can the Minister give us some idea what he expects that timetable to be? In what sort of detail will the Department consider the schemes, and how long does he think they will take to come back? Can local authorities assume, when they have submitted a scheme, that if there is no response after a certain time it has been confirmed, or do they have to sit and wait for a reaction?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I shall go on to say, much of that will be dealt with in regulations. I face a dilemma: I am extremely comfortable with the guillotine, but I am very much of the idea that parliamentary scrutiny is first and foremost the domain of the Opposition rather than the Government. If I slow down considerably, I do not want to be accused of somehow delaying Committee proceedings all the more. Therefore, hon. Members will have to endure what I do not think of as unnecessary speed-reading. Opposition Members might wave if they want me to slow down, and I shall be more than happy to.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

It is like going to the dentist.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall not refer to dentists at all. That would be an unnecessary attack on people's present or previous occupations

If the scheme submitted by the local authority were unsatisfactory in some way, the first step would be discussions with the authority on what changes were necessary to remedy its deficiencies. Much of that already prevails in the course of the development and discussion of assorted plans.

The underlying aim would be to conclude such discussions as quickly as possible, but it might take longer than eight weeks. Opposition Members were at least honest enough to admit that the proposed limit was completely arbitrary. I am told that they were not terribly fussed as to whether it was six, eight or 10 weeks. It is not terribly helpful to say that just because the determination period for planning applications is eight weeks, eight weeks is appropriate. I do not follow that argument at all.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The point is not that eight weeks should be specified but the principle that there should be some limit. For the purpose of probing, we specified eight weeks, but it could be 10 or 12. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what he thinks is a reasonable time frame and table an amendment to deal with it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall come to that point in a moment.

One needs to turn the question around and ask what the purpose would be of building into the Bill a delay for the Secretary of State. We want such matters to be concluded as quickly as possible but, as I said, it

may take longer than eight weeks. The amendment would not be in anyone's interest.

An unintended or unforeseen consequence of being locked into an eight-week period could be to make it more likely that the Secretary of State would intervene. That would happen if discussions with the authority, however well they were going, had not reached a satisfactory conclusion within the eight-week period but the Department felt that it had to intervene and direct—that would be their only chance to do it—rather than simply continue with the more informal route.

It would benefit no one if the process of settling a local planning authority's LDS were to drag on. The Committee will recall that one of the main purposes of the scheme is to help speed up the unacceptably slow process of plan making. I am grateful that the amendment seeks to do that, but my fear is that it will not have that effect. We have constantly said that speed plus quality and efficiency is the real goal of the Bill, not simply speed. The artificial deadline that the amendment would create would not be acceptable.

Equally, we do not accept amendment No. 126. The Secretary of State may wish to discuss with interested parties the changes that should be made to the scheme, but it would be completely ridiculous to require 12 months to elapse and a full public inquiry to be held into what is essentially a project plan.

Amendment No. 127 is unnecessary because regulations are already provided for under clause 14(3)(b), which deals with the time at which the scheme must be submitted to the Secretary of State.

On the timetable for preparing the scheme, one option may be to prescribe that each local authority must have submitted a scheme to the Secretary of State within six months of commencement of part 2. We will consult widely on that and other issues that will be dealt with in regulations later in the year. There must be some time limit but, as with many such matters, it would be more appropriately put in regulations than in the Bill.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I thank the Minister for that explanation, but he sat down before he answered some of the questions.

The Minister has put a timetable on local authorities, which are used to working to timetables on, for example, their budgets. Even if they were assured when they submitted their plans that they would get an indication of the timetable and whether it was likely to change, clearly, a Minister or the Secretary of State could have given those indications in the preliminary discussions, which the Minister has assured us will take place. Will he indicate what timetable he anticipates because there is a great concern that hundreds of local authorities will put in plans?

Unless the Minister is going to bring in the private sector to help his Department to look at the plans, its staffing level and costs will go sky-high. Local

authorities will need an indication in order to keep to their timetables.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I accept some of elements of those points. I do not necessarily accept the point about staffing because, as with the discussion and deliberations on regional planning guidance, much of the work is done by people in Government offices who are well placed and in situ. I suspect that the timetables will depend on the issues, and asking about them is like asking how long is a piece of string. I hope that the plans can be turned round in three to four weeks, but it will depend on the quality and substance in the local development scheme provided.

As I have said, there will be a period in which local authorities will discuss the draft schemes with Government offices, which will cover the timetable as well as the content. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is determined to turn round as rapidly as possible ministerial interventions such as call-ins.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I always want to be helpful. Surely the Minister agrees that, in the majority of cases, he is unlikely to call in or have important discussions, particularly if the preliminary discussions have been dealt with. Like the article 14 approach, it would be reasonable to write to local authorities to say that their plans are unlikely to be called in if they have not heard from him within a certain period of time. That would free the majority of local authorities to get on with planning and working with applications under the new scheme.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not entirely sure about the detail and substantial parts of the process, but what will prevail will not be terribly different from what the hon. Gentleman has described. All schemes must be sent in draft to the Secretary of State, and it would not be terribly useful on the part of the Department if there were not the informal feedback and engagement about which the hon. Gentleman has talked. Prescribing that within definitive time limits and going on to define the process in the Bill would not be terribly helpful, and I can assure him that the overall timetables will be a feature of the regulations after commencement of part 2.

We have already dealt with much of the meat of the amendments, but it is more appropriate to deal with those issues by the flexible route of regulations rather than in the Bill, given that we are entirely unaware of the scope or substance needed to deal with local development schemes that fall down, are inappropriate or need a lot more work. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, much of which we hope will be dealt with at the informal stage, in which indications can be given both ways. In those circumstances, we did not think it appropriate to include those sorts of time limits in the Bill, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

As the Minister will have expected, I found his response fascinatingly unhelpful. He says that the whole purpose of the Bill is to speed up the process but our amendments are wrong because they will speed up the process, which is a curious argument.

The Minister also advanced the argument that speeding up the process will be better done by

regulation. At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to be a recurrent theme of the Bill, and of many others produced by the Government, that things are better done by regulation rather than legislation. The objection to that is quite straightforward: it avoids parliamentary scrutiny. When one does not trust the Government to do what is in the best interests of the British people, one is not in favour—at least, I am not—of giving them even more power to do as they like.

I am grateful to the Minister for one thing. By way of objection to amendment No. 126, he said that it would radically curtail the powers of the Secretary of State.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman would like that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have to admit to a failure. When I tabled the amendment, it had not occurred to me that it would radically curtail those powers. The Minister has advanced the best possible argument in favour of my amendment. My arguments were are important, and he has sealed the case in favour of them. I am sure, however, that that will not be a reason for him to vote for the amendment.

The Minister said something else right and perceptive—that it is the Opposition's role to scrutinise. I notice that, thus far, the Committee has not been graced with a speech from Government Back Benchers, if I remember rightly.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

They are writing next year's Christmas cards.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Quite. It is perfectly clear that the only scrutiny that this Bill will get will be from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

I shall leave the hon. Member for Ludlow to respond on his amendment. On amendment No. 126, I can readily accept various points about drafting. In view of the explanation that has been given, I can accept that a public inquiry would be a cumbersome addition to the process. What concerns me, however, is that that is the only argument that the Minister used against the amendment. I began by saying that I was not wedded to the wording. Saying that the part of the amendment that proposes a public inquiry is wrong does not negate the amendment's principle. I will willingly lose the public inquiry.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

My hon. Friend will find in clause 22(2) and (3) that even if there is not a public inquiry, a lone civil servant inspector inquiry is already in the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. Trying to produce an argument against amendment No. 126, the Minister said that there would be consultation. If that is the case, and the Minister wants it, what is wrong in principle with an amendment that requires consultation? When trying to dismiss the amendment, the Minister was, in a sense, accepting its principles bit by bit. Yet he was not prepared to say that something could be gained by accepting its principles and rewording it to the draftsman's satisfaction.

I can accept another of the Minister's points on detail. He rightly said that such schemes could take

five to 10 years to prepare and the Secretary of State might wish to intervene because proposals are inadequate or because the local authority is too slow. I can accept as a detailed argument against amendment No. 126 that there is a distinction between ''inadequate'' and ''too slow''. If intervention occurs because someone is too slow, and the system requires consultation on that, we will have played straight into the hands of the people who are not acting quickly enough, by making the process even longer. I can accept that, but it does not argue against the amendment's principle. It would be perfectly possible for parliamentary draftsmen to find a form of words to enable the amendment to say that if the reason for intervention were that the plan was inadequate, there must be consultation.

I accept that there should not be consultation if the reason for intervention is that the process has taken too long. I know that the amendment's details need to be thought through, but the Minister has not yet, to my satisfaction, advanced an argument against the principle of putting such requirements into the Bill. He has said only that he would prefer to do that by regulation. I have shown why that is wrong. If his only reason for objecting to the spirit of amendments Nos. 126 and 127, let alone the amendment of the hon. Member for Ludlow, is that he prefers to make such provisions by diktat not democracy, that is not sufficient to oppose the amendments.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I listened carefully to what the Minister said, which was rather confusing, really. He said that one effect of amendment No. 228 was that it would create delay by having a maximum time limit, which is interesting. There is an argument against maximum time limits for almost any case in any Bill. The Minister also contended that it might encourage intervention by the Secretary of State. Whether or not it does that, it is probably a matter of whether the actual time period is right. What we would not want is endless discussion between the local authority and the Government office, and through the Government office the Minister. That is not in anyone's interest.

The Minister said ''Leave it up to me. I'll know when to intervene. Don't put in a timetable.'' I am sure that the current Minister will be very good at doing that, but we have to ensure that we create a system that does not rely on individuals being in post. People can change over time, and we have to create a situation that will ensure that the process works and works on a reasonable timetable, and that there is a degree of certainty in the process.

The problem without some sort of timetable is that the local authorities are to some extent left in limbo, at the point where they are waiting for a decision by a Secretary of State. Therefore, it is in a sense only fair that the Secretary of State, while demanding certain timetables of local authorities, is prepared to adhere to timetables himself.

I have not been convinced by the Minister's responses, and I encourage members of the Committee to support amendment No. 228.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 128,

in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

'not later than 5 years after the formal approval of a scheme.'

I shall not detain the Committee long, as the amendment goes over much the same ground as previous ones, but in a slightly different context.

Subsection (8) provides that

''The local planning authority must revise their local development scheme—

(a) at such time as they consider appropriate;

(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.''

My hunch is that we shall have a bit of a rerun of the ''We'll do all this by regulation nonsense''. But let us hear what the Minister has to say. In the previous debate, he said that he was unhappy, because plans were taking five to 10 years to produce. I support him in that, in that if the plans are to have a real, practical use, they are needed as quickly as possible, and that sort of time scale will not be helpful. But circumstances change quickly these days—indeed, I think, at a faster rate as time goes by. Therefore, it seems to me that the same arguments can be applied. I accept that we want to do something about councils that are being too slow. If five to 10 years is too long for the plan to be developed, a period of more than five years before it is revised would also be too long, as the Minister said.

As I listened to the previous debate, I concluded that when we came to amendment No. 128 the Minister would leap up and say that we did not need to discuss it because he would accept it. However, he has not done so and I suspect that when he has done a little speed reading he will adduce an argument against even this attempt to introduce a timetable. It might just speed things up and although he says he wants to speed things up, he does not. I think that we shall have the same argument all over again. If a plan is to be any good, it must be kept up to date and be relevant to changing circumstances.

In the past, I have plucked figures from the air and said that I did not really mind what they were, but on this occasion five years seems a reasonable period after which there should be a review if circumstances have not forced one sooner. If the Minister wants to say that the situation should be kept under review every two years, I would listen to his argument and might be prepared to change the amendment, but if he accepts no time limit other than that dictated by the Secretary of State's, I cannot accept such an argument. I can accept an argument that sets a different period, but

surely there must be a cut-off point beyond which no one is allowed to drag their feet.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I fully support my hon. Friend on amendment No. 128 and, although we have moved on, I must express disappointment at the Minister's reaction to the previous amendment. For clarification, I gave two examples of eight weeks and six months for an applicant to decide not to appeal. My hon. Friend was on to a good point in suggesting five years because that is the period after which local planning authorities feel they should revisit their existing unitary development plans. Local development frameworks will supersede unitary plans and so on.

I want to make a slight revision, although I cannot do so formally. It might have been more appropriate for the amendment to require the local planning authority to revise its local development scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State—presumably revisions must go to the Secretary of State—within five years of the original scheme or previous scheme being approved. That would provide a definitive period. Otherwise, the local authority, new regional planning board or local planning authority would have to start the process well before the five-year period was up.

That would be a nice amendment to my hon. Friend's amendment, but he is on to a very good point. I am disappointed that the Minister turned down the suggestion in the previous group of amendments of putting fixed periods in the Bill, especially when I welcome the Government's decision to impose timetables elsewhere on the Secretary of State. I particularly draw the Minister's attention to the meaning and words in schedule 2.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Much of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has just said goes to the heart of the flaws and failures of the amendment. There are two key elements. The first is the notion of reciprocity. Leaving a restriction on the Secretary of State without a commensurate duty for local planning authorities at least to begin the process of revision within the five-year period is not acceptable. It is not acceptable also because there is no subsequent escape route. A local authority could keep its head down for five years and submit nothing for the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman. There would be no recourse for the Secretary of State in any way, shape or form under the amendment.

The Secretary of State's power to intervene will be exercised only, as half alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, when the local authority fails to revise its local development scheme, which is no small matter and is one of the troublesome elements of the unitary development plan system. Clause 18 subsequently makes it clear that local development documents must be prepared in accordance with the local development scheme, so an out-of-date scheme could mean that local development documents are also not being prepared as necessary, which is also unacceptable.

In the new system, schemes should be kept under constant review, and it is likely that revisions will

happen far more often than they do currently. I would expect, in some cases at least, some annual review or revision. That would clearly depend on the complexity of a particular area and the way in which it was developing. I accept what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about the five-year limit's being not necessarily appropriate, and that he would not die in the ditch over it, but given the overall sweep of the new system, restricting the Secretary of State, as amendment No. 128 would do, is inappropriate and would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants. The Bill does that better as it is.

One key flaw of the amendment is that the Secretary of State would have nowhere else to go. If he did not issue a direction within a set period, there would be no mechanism by which the local authority could be compelled to revise its scheme. As constant revision, responsiveness and flexibility are at the heart of the new planning framework, that would undermine the whole approach. The local planning authority must also submit an annual report on the scheme's operation, as we will see when we reach clause 34, so we will know whether the scheme is up to date. As the amendment's starting point is to secure revision within five years, we do not think that that is acceptable and it would not necessarily achieve the hon. Gentleman's aims for the reasons that I have outlined. The point is covered elsewhere, so I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

This is becoming a curious morning. On two occasions, the Minister has attacked an amendment's detail, even though I had said that I accepted some of his arguments. The same is true again here, and some of the Minister's comments on the detail of amendment No. 128 need to be considered. It is curious that in both cases he has responded by saying that the principle is good but attacking the detail and urging the Committee to vote against the amendment. I have tried to make it clear on both occasions that I am not deeply wedded to the wording, so if the detail is wrong but what we are trying to achieve is correct, it baffles me why the Minister is not saying that the Committee is on to something and he wants to see whether there is a better way of working before he comes back to the point on Report. Instead, he says that we must turn the principle down because the detail is wrong.

On this occasion, the Minister might have misunderstood what we are debating. He said that the amendment would restrict the Secretary of State. I know why he does not want in principle to restrict the Secretary of State and why he is in favour of giving the Secretary of State as many dictatorial powers as he possibly can. I make no apologies for seeking to restrict the Secretary of State but I am blowed if I can see how amendment No. 128 does that. As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that I should have tabled an amendment to remove subsection 8(b), which says ''when directed to do so by the Secretary of State''.

If I sought to remove that, the Minister's argument would be correct. Such an amendment would restrict the Secretary of State. However, amendment No. 128 does not do that. It leaves alone the Secretary of

State's power to direct, so the argument about restriction is spurious. All the amendment would do is add another condition to provide that there must be a point at which the investigation starts again.

The Minister made one fair point. I am prepared to accept that the amendment's wording means that a local authority could drag its feet and say that it would not start an investigation until five years had passed. That is a perfectly acceptable objection, but I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I am but an Opposition Member who has to do his level best without the resources of government. The Minister can only say that he has consulted the thousands of experts who surround and support him, that the Member for Spelthorne is on to a good idea in principle, and that the Government have a form of words that will help to speed up the process, but that because the detail is wrong, the principle need not be considered.

It is interesting that the Minister said that he thought on reflection that the plans should be kept under constant review. In that case, why does the clause not say so? Instead of saying that the review must take place at such time as the authority considers appropriate, it should jolly well say that the matter must be kept under constant review. If the Minister does not say now that he is prepared to table an amendment to that effect on Report, he will not be surprised to discover that we will table one for him. If we do, I sincerely hope that, having said that it is a good idea, the Minister and his hon. Friends will vote for the amendment.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to withdraw his amendment?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

You can tell why I am in the Whips Office and not on the Front Bench, Mr. Amess. Much as I would love to press the amendment to a Division, we have explored it and I have explained that there will be an avenue for returning to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I wish to register a protest at this point. There is much in the Bill to protest about at various other points, but as I have said, the guillotine will prevent us from doing so. This clause, however, emphasises some things that I am deeply concerned about.

When the consultation paper was announced with great fanfare, Lord Falconer spoke to the all-party Back-Bench Committee that is interested in these matters, and he gave a fascinating display. He started by saying that he had been a Minister with responsibility for planning for six weeks and that he fully understood planning. I will not describe the reaction of ex-planning Ministers and others present, except to say that they smiled gently. Lord Falconer said that he would speed up procedures, and a number of ex-Ministers wished him the best of luck—we are beginning to see why there is a difficulty.

The Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee was then involved, and we had a fascinating time. Perhaps one of the most fascinating mornings was when a Minister from the Welsh Assembly appeared before it to explain her position. To my amazement, I found that I very much agreed with what she said, which was about employing a light touch, changing a little but not much and essentially leaving things as they were and moving ahead.

As the Welsh Minister went out the door, Lord Falconer came in, and he said that there should be a complete change, everything had to be turned upside down and a new scheme had to be introduced. The clause is an example of that, but it will not speed procedures up; it will slow them down.

Worse than that is the over-the-top central direction to local government. I always feel that the term ''local government'' is out of date: it might be local, but it is no longer government. People are dictated to from above. The Secretary of State essentially directs the local planning authority on what documents it has to produce, the subject matter, the geographical area and the timetable for preparation and review. He does not have his own timetable. Included in those documents are the local development documents, to which the clause alludes.

The crunch comes at clause 22. It means that local councillors, having been elected by the local people, sit on the local planning committee, which puts these things together and submits them to the mayor. However, in many instances, the mayor will be diametrically opposed to the local authorities. If we continue with what is in clause 14(3)(c), there will be a central diktat to each of the local authorities, but we are already seeing examples of difficulties in this respect. Some London boroughs are deeply concerned about the prospect of the present Mayor of London using the clause to impose a diktat on their local plan. First and foremost in that respect is the problem of tall buildings. As I mentioned on Tuesday, some London boroughs accept the need for clusters of tall buildings in their areas; others, for good reason, do not. We face the possibility that the Mayor of London—and perhaps, elsewhere, the Secretary of State through the individual civil servant referred to in the provision—will directly dictate to the local authority, overriding the wishes of voters who have elected their councils, some of which have been of the same political complexion for some time.

The Secretary of State can intervene when the scheme is submitted and perhaps again annually when it has to be monitored, but we do not know what will happen then. The Minister has not dealt with any of the local authorities' difficulties: he has not helped them with the timetable; he has not explained how the procedures will develop; he has not advised whether they will receive a light or heavy touch; he has not clarified how much detail is expected. They are deeply concerned, which only contributes to further delays.

As I asked earlier, how will the Secretary of State manage it all? Under the clause, hundreds of documents will be sent to him regularly and

monitored annually. Unless his Department is vastly increased, he is unlikely to do a decent job. I suspect that he does not even have the democratic right to do so?

The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned the significance of different Ministers. With me as Minister, it would be a light touch, with a few exceptions. It will inspire the Minister to go over some of the aggro of the past when I point out that we are debating his Bill. What worries me is that certain Ministers—perhaps a Transport Minister—could be involved. Transport in this country is in a shambles, but the Secretary of State responsible for many of the changes was the one who will be the Secretary of State if he is still there before clause 14 comes into force—[Interruption.] I shall bring myself back into order, Mr. Amess.

The clause highlights a constant theme throughout the Bill—central control, central dictation, and central delay. The element of dictatorship reminds me of countries that believed in five-year plans and five-year leaps forward. Why is it that what is good enough for Wales is not good enough for England?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Clause 14 introduces the development schemes and development documents that replace the unitary development plans and local plans of existing local planning authorities. I appreciate that local development schemes will draw on the Secretary of State's guidance, regional spatial strategies and the required survey of areas under clauses 12 and 13.

Two points have not yet been covered. First, local development documents should include design guides for some sites of local or strategic significance. When I read the Green Paper many moons ago, much was made of action plans, which were intended to make provision for detailed design briefs. Action plans seem to have been dropped . I do not know why, but I would appreciate the Minister's assurance that detailed design briefs are to be encouraged in at least some local development schemes.

The Minister saw fit to ensure, with his majority behind him, that all the amendments we tabled to clause 14 were rejected. That is the nature of democracy, and I cannot quarrel with that. However, I believe that, wherever practicable, putting time into the requirements both on local planning authorities and the Secretary of State is a good thing. I would be reassured if the Minister, in his reply, could give an undertaking that the guidance notes that he and his successors will publish from time to time will advise and recommend time scales that should be strictly adhered to.

I do not apologise for reiterating the fact that the main objective of the legislation is to speed up the planning process. I have to judge this clause on whether it achieves the simplification of the proposed plan-making regime. My own judgment is that it will do nothing to simplify, speed up or improve that regime, compared with the existing regime of local planning authorities, unitary development plans and local plans.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The entire purpose of clause 14 is to set down the needs and requirements for development of the local development scheme.

When the hon. Member for Spelthorne characterised the arguments on this and the previous clause he left out one key detail. He summarised what I had said as being that there were some good ideas in what the Opposition were saying, but that the details were wrong, so hon. Members should vote against the amendments. The key element that he missed out was that I said that the amendments were unnecessary because, in essence, although perhaps not in the areas that the hon. Gentleman wanted, their important elements were already in the Bill or will be in subsequent regulations. I shall not make a habit of correcting the wilful and daily misinterpretation by the Opposition of what I have said, but I thought that I should on this occasion.

The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is right that the clause is important with regard to the local development scheme and all that flows from it. We believe that it will improve transparency, and that people will see for the first time what documents must be prepared and what the timetables are. It is not just about speed. Certainly, area action plans and elements such as design can be incorporated into the local development documents as outlined, but the scheme that we will discuss subsequently revolves around the local development scheme, its extent, and what is and is not in the development plan.

I was intrigued by much of what the hon. Member for Mole Valley said. His speech seemed to me, without my beginning to cast doubt on your role as Chairman, Mr. Amess, to wander very close to being out of order at various stages, and to consist mostly of chasing shadows. If any of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in London local government fear that the Mayor will determine their local development schemes by some sort of diktat, they need not worry. The Mayor has no role in determining the substance or integrity of the local development schemes of London boroughs, and there is no intention that he should. Local development schemes are key to what we are trying to do at the crucial local level to complement what we do at regional level. In that context, for obvious reasons, clause 14 is a crucial part of the Bill. I commend it to the Committee, and ask that it stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Clause 15 - Minerals and waste development scheme

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I beg to move amendment No.88, in

clause 15, page 9, line 9, at end insert—

'(1A) The minerals and waste development scheme must have regard to—

(a) making prudent use of natural resources;

(b) the objective of reducing demand for natural resource usage through the promotion of a pattern of land use which is strategically efficient in its use of aggregates;

(c) the requirement for an environmental capacity assessment;

(d) carrying out, every four years, a regional level review of quantities of regional supplies and their distribution, taking into account the rate of recycling and secondary material, progress with demand management and environmental capacity.'.

I can be fairly succinct on this amendment, as it is clear and straightforward. It is a probing amendment to find out whether the Government take their own words on environmental issues and interests to heart.

The amendment revives memories of the aggro that I used to have as a planning Minister when the difficult task of mineral extraction came before Ministers, frequently after a ding-dong battle between those who wished to extract and those who did not, with the local authorities in the middle. There was a change in the 1990s when some mineral extraction, particularly coal extraction, was rationalised, but we need to go a little further. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England has made some sensible suggestions that explore whether the Minister takes the environment realistically.

The problem with minerals is that, to state the obvious, they are where they are. When they are discovered and need to be extracted, one must take into account the positive and negative aspects. Nowadays we must also include the environmental aspect. We have an opportunity to use the planning system to encourage the trend, which is supported by all sides, towards realising the impact that digging huge holes, particularly opencast holes, for sand, coal and various minerals, has on the environment and people. We must also rationalise the thinking that goes with that and force local authorities at least to think about it, to assess the situation and to recognise that the planning system can be used to encourage recycling.

Recycling has improved dramatically over the past few years, particularly in the private sector, which has recognised the way the nation and the world are going. It has recognised the environmental benefits, and some startling changes have taken place. I think with some amusement of firms that are now sintering sewage sludge so that it can be used on the roads. Other firms not too far from here have laboratories looking into recycling the rubbish scraped off roads when they are to be relaid. To reflect those changes in a planning Bill would considerably enforce that trend, which would follow the line that the Government have taken.

The point of the amendment is to ask the Government what they intend to do and whether they will include anything in planning legislation to ensure that that trend, which we all support, will continue.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I too support to the principle of the amendment. It is an interesting test of the Government's intent. Are they serious about the concept of sustainable use of resources? The crucial line in the amendment is

''a) making prudent use of natural resources''.

Do they accept that we must minimise the use of minerals as much as possible? That is broadly in line with the Government's intentions in the rural White Paper to move away from the predict-and-provide approach to minerals planning.

I suspect that the Minister will say once again that there is some good in the amendment, but absolutely no need for it, as he has done so many times. Once again, he will say that the Opposition parties are being pedantic and should have spotted the provisions in the clause anyway. However, examining clause 15, I cannot see anything that would ensure a prudent use of natural resources.

Some of the more overarching elements of the Bill need to be more sharply defined, especially those concerning minerals and waste. They are one of the aspects of local planning that creates the most antagonism. Committee members have probably been faced with objectors when proposals for waste sites or mineral extraction sites have been put forward. The amendment would ensure that when proposals are brought forward that is done in a rational way that will help to reduce the impact of such schemes on local communities in the long term. I wait with bated breath to hear the Minister's explanation of why the provisions are entirely unnecessary and covered already, despite our having no evidence of that.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I put my name to the amendment, which would add an additional subsection to clause 15, with enthusiasm. It has been inspired by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and I pay compliment to that prestigious organisation.

The amendment would ensure that minerals and waste development schemes conform to the key sustainable development principle of the prudent use of natural resources. I am not exaggerating when I say that one of the most vital issues that our country, and the world, has to face is the urgent need for the promotion of sustainable development policies. I put it on record, in case it is thought to be an interest that should be declared, that I have the privilege of being the chairman of the 44-nation Council of Europe's committee on sustainable development.

Our earth has a fragile eco-system, which we are abusing terribly. Instead of living off the interest of our land, we are taking resources from it at too great a rate, and diminishing the remaining resources. Unless we take urgent action, we will rightly be seen as the curse of future generations. For too long, minerals

planning has been based on a predict-and-provide strategy. As the CPRE reminds us, we have to reverse that and ensure that we mine only aggregates that we need when there is no other alternative. That may be a rather high-falutin aspiration but it ought to be said because we will have to examine the issue time and again.

The amendment would set out in statute the objective of prudent use. Incidentally, I do hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, even if he feels it necessary to make slight adjustments to it. It would fulfil the stated policy of the Government. The prudent use of natural resources is one of the four key elements of sustainable development as defined in the national sustainable development strategy ''A better quality of life''. It embodies the Government's objective of doing more with less. I hasten to add that that is the strategy of the Department of Trade and Industry and not of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least not at present. The amendment is in line with the Government's commitment in their rural White Paper to move away from a predict-and-provide approach to minerals planning. I pay tribute to the CPRE. This is one of the most crucial amendments and if it were incorporated in the Bill, it would be to the Government's eternal credit.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

A couple of points in the amendment are relevant to my constituency duties. God, in his wisdom, put Spelthorne slap on the top of a huge supply of gravel and much as we would like the gravel to be moved elsewhere to stop us suffering from it, no one can decide how to do it. I fully support the general points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley and for Chipping Barnet, but I want to take things a little further and explore some difficulties that arise whatever approach is taken to mineral extraction.

Paragraph (a) refers to

''making prudent use of natural resources''.

I wholly accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said about prudent use being the driving force, but up until now there has been pressure—not wholly unacceptable from a constituency point of view—to say that there is a dilemma over the maximum extraction of a resource in a particular place and the time that that will take. We should not overlook that. If one takes a deposit of gravel and works it right through to the bitter end, there is always a danger that it will go on for so long that the local people who have to suffer the inconvenience will say, ''Hang on, this is taking too long.''

We should not rush towards prudent use as the only consideration. I readily accept that it may need to be the primary consideration, but there is a danger in thinking only about prudent use and overlooking the fact that that could create additional problems for nearby residents. In going down this route, we should not overlook the local people, who might, on the face of it, appear to be the very people who would be in favour of prudent use and maximum extraction from the site. I agree that there is also a danger, whether we are talking about coal mines or gravel pits, of saying

that it is easy to extract two thirds, but difficult and lengthy to extract the rest, so we will ignore it. That is not prudent use. However, stretching the process out over a longer period would cause other problems, which need to be taken into account.

Paragraph (c) mentions

''the requirement for an environmental capacity assessment''.

From a CPRE perspective, I understand only too well what that is driving at, but I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the amendment mentions only an ''environmental capacity assessment''. I want to focus for a moment on the built environment; it is easy to perceive it as the natural environment for spoiling the countryside, but when one is considering gravel workings in a constituency such as mine, one needs to make an assessment about the ability of the built environment to cope with what is being proposed.

One of the biggest problems that I have, and I know that other Members have the same difficulty, is that the strategic, regional or local plans for the best use of mineral resources state that resources must be taken from a certain place. That becomes policy and is usually used in planning inquiries when there is hostility. People say, ''This is the county plan that says that this must happen.'' The built environment—I am thinking in particular about roads in villages—is sometimes incapable of handling the situation, yet there is no strategic plan that says, ''We want to work these resources, but they may not be worked until such time as the following improvements have been made to the infrastructure.'' Plans also tend not to say, ''and we will make the resources available for that to happen.''

As long as the debate on the amendment acknowledges the tension between prudent use and the length of time that that will take, and also that environmental capacity must encompass the built as well as the natural environment, the amendment undoubtedly has my support.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

At times when I listen to Opposition Members I wonder why they do not arrange at some point to continue the sitting without me. One stands up, gives his view and tells me what my view is, and then another stands up, pushes his view and tells me how I will respond to his points.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I thank the Minister for the best suggestion that we have had all day.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

So long as the Government prevail in the votes, I am happy whether or not I am here.

Much of what the Opposition have said is very interesting and very serious but completely irrelevant in the context of the clause, which is not about policy matters on minerals and waste but solely about the documents that local planning authorities will prepare and the timetables for preparing them.

The amendment seeks to draw together on the convenient hook of clause 15, sometimes with a weakening of the present position, everything that has occurred anyway, by and large, through other processes of government. That is all very important

but subject to a good deal of debate, at least in the environmental lobby. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of the amendment are not the definitive description of how to do what needs to be done about mineral and waste development schemes—the paucity of policy is startling.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am astounded by the Minister's comments. The amendment is additional, or supplementary to clause 15(1). I take his point that the Bill sets out the framework and that we are giving the detail, but the first 14 clauses are littered with statements that a local authority or a regional body is required to do something that will include other somethings. The amendment exactly conforms to that pattern. It is not that we are trying to write the policy. We are simply widening the strategy by saying what the requirements are.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is not the case. The amendment is far more specific than that, with a weight of policy on minerals and waste that I contend would ultimately be detrimental.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

The Minister said that we put the amendment on the hook of clause 15, but I remind him that I said it was a probing amendment. I would like to know, perhaps contrary to my hon. Friend's approach, how the Minister would use the planning system instead. This probing amendment asks how the Government will fulfil the intent of their written words.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As the hon. Gentleman will know from previous debates, the entire Bill is permeated with the need to take very seriously the sustainable environment thrust from which we started. Subsequently, we have come up with very detailed, technical, green and environmentally and ecologically friendly guidance on minerals and waste. Paragraphs (a) to (d) do not begin to capture the essence or detail of that guidance.

As I mentioned previously, we are trying desperately to ensure, under a broadly strategic and overarching view, that PPGs become PPPs, but the present draft guidance on waste and minerals is very long, and rightly so, because it is an enormously complex subject, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It cannot be melted down to four little catch phrases about prudent use of natural resources, and whatever else.

In essence, too much of what we are doing is outwith the Bill and outwith the planning system. With the aggregates levy, which was introduced in April 2002, we are trying explicitly to encourage economy in the specification and use of aggregates, discourage the waste of aggregates on construction and encourage greater use of recycled and secondary materials as alternatives to newly dug aggregate. Nothing added to the clause will change that; it is already the Government's avowed position. It is a fiscal tool, a mechanism, and it does not belong anywhere near a Bill on planning.

Paragraph (c) is about the requirement for an environmental capacity assessment. That is not a generic term but a specific term about a particular technique for assessing environmental impact.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I recognise that there may be flaws in the amendment, but the purpose behind it relates to subsection (3)(a), which states:

''references to a local development scheme include references to a minerals and waste development scheme''.

What we are trying to get across to the Minister is that the Bill should include something to drive home to those putting the scheme together the appropriate environmental approach. It does not have to be this amendment, but something ought to be included in the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That will be driven home by clause 38 and everything that underpins part 1, because every document germane to the development plan will have to go through the rigours of the sustainable appraisal framework—everything, not only a little bit of it. Not only the waste and minerals scheme, but every single document that is germane to planning will have to go through that process. That will be made explicit in PPG12 and elsewhere.

Huw Edwards (Labour, Monmouth)

What reassurance can my hon. Friend give my constituents, who are concerned about the designation of 29 sand and gravel sites in the constituency, all of which are in a special landscape area, which are proposed as an alternative to dredging in the Bristol channel? I hope that my hon. Friend can give some assurance that the Bill will have a greater presumption against the exploitation of such reserves in special landscape areas.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Given the new PPG says on minerals and aggregates, the aggregates levy, and the environmental dimensions and sustainability element being rooted throughout the new planning system, that broad assurance can be given. Prudent use and those other elements that hon. Members have rightly mentioned are all important. They will permeate the overall approach of the Bill, not simply the minerals and waste dimension. It is wholly inappropriate for people to start picking elements—for instance, to pick a favoured policy approach to minerals and waste—and hook it on to a clause. The clause merely determines that there will be mineral and waste strategies, and that county councils must prepare documents along such and such a timetable.

It is not, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet suggested, that we have taken that approach until now. We have not been explicit in the Bill about policy matters that more appropriately belong in PPGs or guidance. I will not have the charge laid at my door that, because we do not go along with this particular approach and that particular set of new clauses for this aspect of minerals and waste, we are somehow against sustainable development, against prudent mineral and waste strategies, or any other such jibes. They could not be further from the truth, given where we started. Sustainability is writ large, and it underwrites everything in the Bill—including clause 15.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I do not impugn anything base to the Minister. I hope that he is assured about that. I am staggered that he feels that we are going outside the spirit or necessity of the Bill. We all want to keep it as simple as possible. I give one example.

Clause 5, on the regional spatial strategy revisions, begins:

''The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS''.

Clause 5(3) continues:

''In preparing a draft revision the RPB must have regard to''

certain factors. Clause 15 is about minerals and waste development schemes. It is not as though we are taking something new and trying to transplant it artificially into the clause. The amendment would add to subsection (1):

''The minerals and waste development scheme must have regard to''

the four items that we have listed. That is exactly the same as what is proposed in clause 5 and in other clauses.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the greatest of respect, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case at all. If he had read on in clause 5, he would have discovered that it covers national policies and advice contained in guidance, the regional spatial strategy for each adjoining region, the spatial development strategy if any part of its region adjoins Greater London, and the Welsh spatial plan. There is nothing about specific policies or specific techniques to determine and assess policy as he suggested.

As I said before, an environmental capacity assessment, as alluded to in proposed new subsection (1)(c), is not a generic term for the assessment of the capacity of something in an environment: it is a scientific tool of assessment. Including it in the Bill would be like saying, ''No other technique will do—just this one.'' That is as inappropriate as saying, ''This aspect of policy is important to us, but not the lot.'' That would ultimately weaken the ability to do what is desired on minerals and waste strategy, rather than strengthen it. In the legal context, such elements and such a technique as is detailed in proposed new subsection (1)(c) will quite rightly prevail when the matter comes up in any study of an application, rather than elements of guidance or another approach. The amendment is a false clause that would weaken the position on minerals and waste, not enhance it. Clauses 5 and 15 do not bear comparison.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

However much the Minister wants to huff and puff, there are a couple of simple facts that he ought to bear in mind. First, the amendment is in order, otherwise it would not be on the amendment paper. Secondly, everything that the Opposition have said has been in order, otherwise, Mr. Amess, you would have ruled us out of order. The debate is perfectly legitimate. The issues of prudent use and environmental capacity are up for discussion. We and the public are fully entitled to draw the conclusion from the Minister's refusal to join in the debate that he could not care less about the issue.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not sure that that is worthy of any response at all. It was a bit half-hearted and not terribly clever. I have engaged fully with the debate, and have not at any stage alleged that what the Opposition said was out of order—just that it would be entirely inappropriate to introduce specifics on policy in a clause that details processes and structure—

Mr. Wilshire rose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No. I gave him the last one. The hon. Gentleman can rest for a bit.

The clause is about process and structure, not about specific policy. Specific policies, evaluative techniques and aspects of environmental assessment are not mentioned in clause 5. The amendment would be wrong in that regard, and would not at all help to effect significantly a ecologically sound waste and mineral strategies. I do not broadly disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Spelthorne said on the substance of those policies. Before he gets on his toes, I say in passing that, if the hon. Member for Mole Valley had as much concern for green and environmental issues now as when he was in a position to do something about them, we might not be where we are now.

I have no difficulty with the substance of the policies that people talk about. We are making legislation. The amendment is inappropriate. Much of what it contains—I am sorry to satisfy the hon. Member for Ludlow—is either the Government's policy already, such as the aggregates levy, or will be alluded to succinctly through policy guidance. The amendment is unnecessary and, I think, a tad unusual, in the sense that it is wasting the Committee's time. The amendment does nothing to add to the mineral and waste strategy schemes that county councils need, how they do them, what documents they should provide, and what the timetable should be. That is all that the clause is about.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I shall ignore the dig into the past because it is clear that the Minister has not looked into the past. If he had, he would not have said what he said.

I began by pointing out that this was a probing amendment to deal with the concerns on both sides of the House. The Minister has already had questions about 29 potential holes, with more to be discovered in the constituencies of one of his hon. Friends. All of us who represent a rural or mixed constituency share those concerns. We want, and the public want, a reference, perhaps in clause 15(3)(a), that will encourage, bully or cajole county councils into taking a much more local environmental interest.

The Minister may be right that some procedures would be inappropriate. However, despite being asked, he has not told us what he will do and why he will not use the Bill at least to open the door.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The door is already wide open. Authorities will be required to undertake sustainability appraisals of the proposals in any local development document, minerals and waste included. In part 1, the Government are committed to the implementation of a strategic environmental assessment directive, which was sent to the Committee. The Government have already commissioned research on developing an environmental appraisal of aggregates. The research will be blown out of the water if we can use only an environmental capacity assessment, and that is clear from the Bill.

The idea of sustainability in the form of regional spatial strategies and local development plans permeates the Bill. The full implementation of the SEA directive and the statutory footing given to sustainability go to the heart of the amendment, which deals with minerals and waste. However, the amendment does not add to our ability to be ecologically sensible or environmentally sensitive on waste and minerals. The amendment merely deals with the documents that need to be prepared and the timetable. If the message of environmental sustainability has not got through to the Committee yet, it will as we proceed. The guidance, our response to the SEA directive, what we mean by sustainable development in clause 38, the full acceptance of the sustainability framework and the appraisal that will underpin everything will send out loudly and clearly a message on waste and minerals and on every planning aspect affecting the environment and ecosystem. That is why we must resist the amendment.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I listened carefully to the Minister and I regret to have to tell him and the Committee that I profoundly disagree with him. I do not wish to prolong this debate, as there may be other matters to discuss in future. I intend to press the amendment because it is fundamentally important. I might slightly disagree with my hon. Friend when he referred to it as a probing amendment. It is a vital issue, and I shall certainly press the Committee to a vote.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is up to the hon. Member for Mole Valley.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Directives are merely direction, and I accept that the amendment may have flaws, as the Minister pointed out. However, the Government have an opportunity to include in the Bill a requirement that gives a real chance to the environmental lobby to impress its opinion on local authorities, particularly on county councils. The two most environmentally difficult areas for planning are waste and mineral extraction, yet there is no mention in clause 15 of the word ''environment''.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I beg to move amendment No.257, in

clause 15, page 9, line 12, leave out 'scheme', and insert 'plan'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 258, in

clause 15, page 9, line 14, leave out 'scheme', and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 259, in

clause 15, page 9, line 15, leave out 'scheme', and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 268, in

clause 23, page 13, line 18, leave out 'documents' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 269, in

clause 23, page 13, line 25, after 'a' insert 'local'.

Amendment No. 272, in

clause 23, page 13, line 34, after 'a', insert 'local'

Amendment No. 274, in

clause 23, page 13, line 37, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 275, in

clause 23, page 13, line 41, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 276, in

clause 23, page 13, line 43, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 277, in

clause 23, page 13, line 45, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 278, in

clause 23, page 14, line 1, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 279, in

clause 23, page 14, line 3, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 281, in

clause 24, page 14, line 10, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 283, in

clause 26, page 14, line 40, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 284, in

clause 26, page 15, line 4, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 285, in

clause 26, page 15, line 5, leave out first 'document' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 286, in

clause 26, page 15, line 5, leave out second 'document' and insert 'plan'.

New clause 7—Local Development Plans—

'(1) The local planning authority must prepare a plan for their area to be known as a local development plan.

(2) The plan must set out—

(a) the authority's objectives in relation to the development and use of land in their area;

(b) their general policies for the implementation of those objectives.

(3) The plan may also set out specific policies in relation to any part of the area of the authority.

(4) Regulations under this section may prescribe the form and content of the plan.

(5) In preparing a local development plan the authority must have regard to—

(a) current national policies;

(b) the England Spatial Plan;

(c) the RSS for their region and any region which adjoins the area of the authority;

(d) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

(e) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(f) the resources likely to be available for implementing the plan;

(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

(6) The authority must also—

(a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the plan;

(b) prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal.

(7) The community strategy is the strategy prepared by an authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c.22).

(8) A plan is a local development plan only in so far as it—

(a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development plan;

(b) is approved by the Secretary of State.'.

New clause 8—Local Development Plans: preparation requirements—

'(1) A local development plan must be prepared in accordance with—

(a) the local planning authority's community involvement scheme;

(b) the timetable for the preparation and adoption of the authority's local development plan.'

(2) The authority's community involvement scheme is a statement of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the authority's functions under this Part of the persons to which subsection (3) applies.

(3) The persons mentioned in subsection (2)—

(a) must include such persons as the Secretary of State prescribes;

(b) may include such other persons as appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in the area of the authority.

(4) The authority and the Secretary of State must attempt to agree the terms of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).

(5) But to the extent that the Secretary of State and the authority cannot agree the terms, the Secretary of State may direct that the documents must be in the terms specified in the direction.

(6) The authority must comply with the direction.

(7) The Secretary of State may prescribe—

(a) the procedure in respect of the preparation of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1);

(b) the form and content of the documents;

(c) the time at which any step in the preparation of the documents must be taken;

(d) publicity about the documents;

(e) making the documents available for inspection by the public;

(f) circumstances in which the requirements of the documents need not be complied with'.

New clause 9—Independent examination—

'(1) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

(2) But the authority must not submit a plan unless—

(a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and

(b) they think the plan is ready for independent examination.

(3) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the local development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.

(4) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.

(5) The purpose of the independent examination is to determine in respect of a local development plan—

(a) whether it satisfies the requirements for local development plans and their preparation as set out in this part;

(b) whether it is sound.

(6) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a local development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.

(7) The person appointed to carry out the examination—

(a) must make recommendations;

(b) give reasons for the recommendations.

(8) The local planning authority must publish the recommendations and the reasons'.

New clause 10—Intervention by the Secretary of State—

'(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that a local development plan is unsatisfactory he may at any time before the plan is adopted by the local planning authority direct them to modify the plan in accordance with the direction.

(2) The authority—

(a) must comply with the direction;

(b) must not adopt the plan unless the Secretary of State gives notice that he is satisfied that they have complied with the direction.

(3) At any time before a local development plan is adopted by a local planning authority the Secretary of State may direct that the plan is submitted to him for his approval.

(4) The following apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (3)—

(a) the authority must not take any step in connection with the adoption of the plan until the Secretary of State gives his decision;

(b) if the direction is given before the authority have submitted the plan for independent examination under the requirements of this part the Secretary of State must hold an independent examination and the requirements under this part for independent examinations will apply accordingly;

(c) if the direction is given after the authority have submitted the plan the person appointed to carry out the examination must make his recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(d) the plan has no effect unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish the recommendations made to it by virtue of subsection (4)(b) or (c).

(6) In considering a plan submitted under subsection (3) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter which he thinks is relevant.

(7) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the authority.

(8) The Secretary of State—

(a) may approve subject to specified modifications or reject a plan submitted to him under subsection (3);

(b) must give reasons for his decision under paragraph (a).

(9) In the exercise of any function under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the local planning authority's community involvement scheme and the timetable for the preparation and adoption of the authority's local development plan.'

New clause 11—Withdrawal of local development plan—

'(1) A local planning authority may at any time before a local development plan is adopted under this section withdraw the plan.

(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to a local development plan at any time after the plan has been submitted for independent examination unless—

(a) the person carrying out the examination recommends that the plan is withdrawn and that recommendation is not overruled by a direction given by the Secretary of State, or

(b) the Secretary of State directs that the plan must be withdrawn.'.

New clause 12—Adoption of local development plan—

'(1) The local planning authority may adopt a local development plan as originally prepared if the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the plan recommends that the plan as originally prepared is adopted.

(2) The authority may adopt a local development plan with modifications if the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the plan recommends the modifications.

(3) A plan is adopted for the purposes of this section if it is adopted by resolution of the authority.

(4) But the authority must not adopt a local development plan if the Secretary of State directs them not to do so.'.

New clause 13—Revocation of local development plan—

'The Secretary of State may at any time revoke a local development plan at the request of the local planning authority.'.

New clause 14—Review of local development plan—

'(1) A local planning authority must carry out a review of their local development plan at such times as the Secretary of State prescribes.

(2) The authority must report to the Secretary of State on the findings of their review.

(3) A review must—

(a) be in such form as is prescribed;

(b) be published in accordance with such requirements as are prescribed.'.

New clause 15—Revision of local development plan—

'(1) The local planning authority may at any time prepare a revision of a local development plan.

(2) The authority must prepare a revision of a local development plan—

(a) if the Secretary of State directs them to do so;

(b) if, following a review of the local development plan as set out in this Part, they think that the plan should be revised.

(3) This Part applies to the revision of a local development plan as it applies to the preparation of the plan.'.

New clause 16—Joint local development plans—

'(1) Two or more local planning authorities may agree to prepare a joint local development plan.

(2) This Part applies for the purposes of the preparation, revision, adoption, withdrawal and revocation of a joint local development plan as it applies for the purposes of the preparation, revision, adoption, withdrawal and revocation of a local development plan.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a local development plan must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in subsection (1) in connection with a joint local development plan.

(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply if a local planning authority withdraws from an agreement mentioned in subsection (1).

(5) Any step taken in relation to the plan must be treated as a step taken by—

(a) an authority which was a party to the agreement for the purposes of any corresponding plan prepared by them;

(b) two or more other authorities who were parties to the agreement for the purposes of any corresponding joint local development plan.

(6) Any independent examination of a local development plan to which the agreement relates must be suspended.

(7) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection an authority which was a party to the agreement requests the Secretary of State to do so he may direct that—

(a) the examination is resumed in relation to the corresponding plan;

(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.

(8) A joint local development plan is a local development plan prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities.'.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I felt rather stunned when I was asked to take on the job of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I saw this large group of amendments. If I wanted to delay the Committee, this would be my opportunity, because I could go through each amendment blow by blow.

It is interesting that the provisions come in clause 15, but I will not question whether that is appropriate, because I would get into severe trouble. That aside, the crux of what we are saying is the same as for clause 14—the Bill will impose an enormously centralised, dictatorial system on local authorities.

Opposition Members gave a faint murmur from a sedentary position when I asked why certain provisions were good enough for Wales, but not for England. As I suggested, that may partly be down to the fact that the Welsh Minister responsible for such issues made it clear to the Select Committee that appropriate changes could be made there. That is the crux of what we saying in the amendments.

The Select Committee listened to Lord Falconer, but also to many other, deeply concerned people. We had a rather flamboyant presentation by the Confederation of British Industry, which slid backwards later on. It would be fair to say, however, that support for the Government was lacking and that the Select Committee report was damning.

No account seems to have been taken of that. Subtle changes have been made to the proposals, and one or two members of the Select Committee are a little happier—indeed, one of them got his plans. What the country will get, however, is the imposition of enormously complex central control. It does not need that, and nor do house-building or developmental control.

We therefore decided that it would be appropriate to table the amendments, and we were assisted by representatives of the Town and Country Planning Association. If anyone should know what it is like out there, it should. It said that the aim of the amendments is to replace the somewhat cumbersome and confusing system of local development schemes, frameworks and documents with a simple local development plan for each local authority. That would be clear and sensible. The member of the Committee from Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth, has his head in his hands because he knows that that is a fact. Of course, he will have to be bullied into supporting us, or he will have to leave the Room when the time comes. He knows the truth of the matter. When he returns to his

constituency, his local authority—as the local planning authority—will have a simple and straightforward system. I may want to tweak some aspects later, but the essence of the amendments is that things should be much less complicated. There should be much less interference and much less control, and procedures should be more democratic than they will be in England.

At the end of the day, when everyone in the local democracy has voted for their councillors, the councillors have sat on the Committee and come up with various stipulations, papers and plans whose complexity is quite remarkable—even more remarkable is the fact that the references in the Bill and the explanatory notes do not always correlate, but I shall leave that aside—and those plans have been submitted to the Secretary of State, the final decision will then be made by a civil servant or inspector. He might never have visited the area. He might know nothing about it, but he will make the decision, and that decision will be binding on the local democracy. I find that quite remarkable.

The Government have said as flamboyantly as the CBI—Lord Falconer was very proud to say this—that they want to achieve simplicity in planning and remove various layers so that the planning system can move forward faster. However, they have done the opposite. The Bill risks replacing structural plans with a whole range of unheard-of documents, schemes, frameworks and plans. Some are in the Bill and some are referred to in the explanatory notes, so I presume that we will find those later.

The proposal for a new set of documents to replace the widely understood concept of a local plan has not come from the people out there who have to carry plans out. It has not come from the people out there who have to conform to them. It has come from someone in the bureaucracy here, supported by Ministers—or perhaps, the other way round, a Minister has asked the Department's bureaucracy to produce it—who shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what is going to happen and of what life is like out there. The Minister continually says that the process will be speeded up and that there will be timetables. He will not set timetables for himself, but he will set them for local authorities. He is actually impeding the system and delaying everything.

The scheme as put forward has been widely criticised. We have seen that in the Committee and in various journals. The amendment, supported by the Town and Country Planning Association, represents the feeling of more than 100 local planning authorities. It is also supported by various individuals and groups with environmental concerns. Perhaps the Minister should reflect on that. It also reflects the feeling of many representatives of firms that are not necessarily part of the TCPA but are deeply concerned that the Government's building targets will not be met, because of the complex system.

As I have said, in Wales, this approach has been turned down. Interestingly, the Minister in the Welsh Assembly is a professional planner, so possibly knows a little about it. The amendment would introduce a simple system, one that the Government support for

Wales. Why can they not support it for England? I know that the language is different. I have enough trouble with English, let alone with Welsh, but apart from that, the differences are not such that the simple system that Wales will have cannot be utilised for the benefit of the building that the Government want to take place in England.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I find myself in broad agreement with the thrust of the amendments. There are details to which I would not subscribe, such as the idea of an England spatial strategy, but in broad essence, I agree with their thrust.

This is one of the more critical moments for the Committee. The Bill's whole purpose is at stake. Why have the Government introduced a planning Bill? They say that it is to speed up the planning process and make it work better, but what will it achieve? I think that it will have two different results. In Wales, there is a degree of consensus that the proposals for Wales are broadly good. Numerous organisations have beaten a path to my door to talk about parts of the Bill, but none has been from Wales because Welsh organisations are broadly happy with the Welsh component of the Bill. However, the opposite view is held with regard to the parts pertaining to England.

If planning is to work, it must be easily understood by the public and by companies. The current system is not perfect, but it is broadly understood by firms and the public. One can apply a test to the Bill, which is to hand it to all our colleagues in the House and say ''When someone comes in to your next surgery with a planning problem, as they invariably do, explain the new system to them.'' I suspect that many of our colleagues would run a mile rather than try to do that.

The Bill adds complexity to the planning system. It may slow the system down, contrary to the Government's intentions. They are tossing everything in the air and producing a new set of terms and acronyms, so it will be a considerable time before councillors and planners, as well as the public, can get their heads round all the changes. What is the point of change if it achieves very little? One of the problems with the Bill is that there is no certainty that it will achieve much. The planning system probably needs some changes. Some changes are needed in Wales, but the Welsh seem to be bringing them about without going to the lengths that are necessary in England.

I said that I find some elements of the amendments difficult to support. There are bits that I would object to, but I cannot but support them, because they try to bring the system into line with the one proposed for Wales. Therefore, I hope that Labour Members will see the consensus built around the Welsh proposals and wonder why the Government have not managed to achieve a similar consensus in England. Why have they not managed that? It is because they have produced something completely different.

I realise that the Minister might have to eat a little humble pie, but I urge him to talk to his Welsh colleagues and ask them how they have managed to achieve what they have. We should see whether we can incorporate the essence of that in the Bill and make

substantial changes on Report that will improve and enhance the current planning system, instead of tossing it all up in the air and reassembling it in a way that makes it difficult for the public and professionals to disentangle it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The amendments get rid of local development documents. It is not for me to dwell on how good or bad the Welsh planning system is, save to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said from a sedentary position, that that is what is called devolution.

Is it appropriate for the local development office approach to be ripped out of the body of the Bill, as the amendments propose? The answer is no. Hon. Members can dwell for ever on how supposedly over-complex the system is. I accept that we are not helped in that regard by the various acronyms and descriptions in the Bill. I know that hon. Members will giggle at this, but the Bill is not over-complex. As and when the provisions are laid out, the specifics of what is required in the local development frameworks for each English planning authority will be clear.

Hon. Members must ask themselves whether they feel that it is more appropriate to delineate exactly what needs to be in the development plan and simply call it a local development plan in the way in which the Welsh propose. I say that the answer is no because this is a matter for England and that is a matter for Wales. There is nothing in the Welsh local development plan that is not in the local development framework and documents for the English system because they will all be broadly the same. There will be one document in the Welsh case and a range of clearly delineated documents in the English case.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Not at the moment. The elements required under the systems in parts 1 and 2—the sustainability appraisal, the statement of community involvement, the survey and the annual report—are clear. In the main, all the Secretary of State and reserve powers, which have exercised the hon. Gentleman for so long, will be performed, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will say when we get to part 6, in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales.

Opposition Members do not do the debate much credit by looking for and seeing complexity when it is not there. I can do that because I can stand up and say, ''You need a local development document and a local development framework, but LDFs are not on the face of the Bill.'' What would LDDs and LDFs do to the integrity of the new system in England apart from delaying, confusing and over-complicating it? As someone with 11 years of experience on a planning committee, I say that when one considers the end result of the system, the approach is not over-burdensome or complex and is not littered with delay. LDDs are part of that process and are central to the local-regional split. The thrust of the amendment is to take out LDDs, which would have consequences for the system. Acronyms and labels will not help or enhance the planning system in England.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am slightly perplexed because we propose to introduce local development strategies and schemes. I am not going to the barricades, but I think that everyone knows what a plan is. We have had unitary development plans and local plans, and why should we not stick with those words? Will the Minister explain why he uses the words ''schemes'' and ''documents'' when he refers to England but, when he comes to part 6 of the Bill, refers to the Wales spatial plan and uses the word ''plans'' instead of ''schemes'' and ''documents'', which is confusing?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an explanation until the starring role on part 6 by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is a very good friend of mine—we are both ex-Whips—and into whose mouth I will not put words. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Welsh matinée, which will appear next Tuesday at some stage or other.

This is the objection to the amendment: there need to be developed local and regional levels, and such a two-tier system is at the heart of the Bill. We have dealt with the local development scheme, the overall approach, the timetable and how local planning authorities need to get together the assorted portfolio documents that they need. Some local development documents will be rooted in part of the local development plan and some will not. Clearly—this is the heart of the argument—if the amendments prevail, the new two-tier system, which the Government want to introduce on the local-regional split, will not prevail. Take away LDDs, which is the thrust of the amendments, and the system that we want to put in place, which will be speedier, fairer, more responsive and more flexible, will not prevail. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments and to support the clause.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I am not surprised. I guess that we all expected the Minister to do this because it was knocking one heck of a hole into his Bill, but it was done with some justification. As I understand it, the Minister is doing tours of an explanatory nature to members of planning committees, or at least to planners and chairmen of planning committees throughout London. I understand that he has had one meeting, and I picked up from those who were there that the initial meeting was more of a ritual me-to-you, Minister-to-audience meeting. The Minister has had little opportunity to have the audience back to him.

It would have been nice if the Committee stage of the Bill had been delayed. For a change, both Opposition parties have been saying the same thing, probably because we have both received the same reaction from the public and practitioners, and what they are saying is completely contrary to what the Minister is claiming. If he had consulted more widely, he might have got the feeling that we did from the lobby, from people who came to see us and from distraught or bemused local authorities—bemused because they will have imposed on them a complex system that they are convinced is a combination of central dictation and delay.

The Minister will not accept the amendments. I understand that, but it will be intriguing to hear his explanations and arguments when we come to the Welsh part of the Bill. If I were mischievous, I might table amendments to try to impose on Wales similar provisions to those that have been imposed on England and listen next week to Under-Secretary of State for Wales explaining to me why that would delay everything, why the practitioners there would not like it and why building in Wales would come to a grinding halt. The hon. Member for Monmouth is barely able to maintain a straight face—he is smiling gently. He knows that in supporting the Minister, he will stymie building in England. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment. It was tabled to make a point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in

clause 15, page 9, line 20, leave out subsection (a).

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 260, in

clause 15, page 9, line 20, leave out '16(3)', and insert '16(2)'.

Amendment No. 130, in

clause 15, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (d).

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

This is the point at which it becomes clear just how poor my brain is. I tabled the amendments because I simply do not understand what we are doing. I hasten to add that I tabled amendments Nos. 129 and 130 but not amendment No. 260. I have enough trouble getting my mind around my amendments without trying to get my mind around other people's.

I fully expected the Minister to leap up with glee and say that the hon. Member for Spelthorne simply does not understand. I am prepared for that because he would then have to explain to me what the clause really means. If I understand it correctly, clause 15(3) says that part 2 of the Bill

''applies to a minerals and waste development scheme''

but with few exceptions. That much I understand, but amendment No. 129 would delete one of the exceptions, and I am blowed if I can see that it makes sense. The Bill says that part 2 applies to a minerals and waste development scheme, but then goes on to say, in clause 16(3), that it does not require that plan to set out policies relating to the development and use of land in the area.

I am puzzled that there is a requirement to set out a minerals and development plan but that it will not apply to development and use of land in the area of the county council. What is the point of saying that it must have a plan that does not apply to the land in the area? It may not mean that, but it would help me, and those who will enforce the Bill after enactment, to know why the plan does not apply.

On amendment No. 130, under the clause, part 2 applies to a minerals and waste development scheme, but not to clauses 28 to 30. In other words, if I understand it correctly, it does not apply where there is

a joint authority. Clauses 28 to 30 give powers to set up a joint authority, but, for some reason that escapes me, the clause states that the minerals plan is not relevant when clauses 28 to 30 are in effect. So we have a plan for an area, which is not a plan for an area because it is exempted from being one, which does not apply if there is a joint authority.

A regional rather than a county approach would benefit minerals planning in south-west Middlesex, where my constituency is, as well as Berkshire and north Surrey. Once the Bill is enacted, people may choose to argue that the most sensible way of using the gravel in that part of England would be to do it jointly. However, if I understand it correctly, clause 15(3) excludes a joint authority. Despite that, if that is right, and despite the fact that something could be done better if it was done jointly, this part of the Bill excludes joint committees. Amendment No. 130 would remove that exclusion of joint committees, although if I have got my knickers in a twist, I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to point it out.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It might have been useful if the hon. Gentleman had remembered why he tabled the amendments, because I can see the logic of why he did. I shall try to explain to the rest of the Committee, and if I have missed his logic, perhaps he can explain what his logic was if he can remember it.

The clause relates to minerals and waste development schemes that are declared and avowed county matters. Only a county deals with minerals and waste. Clause 16 is about local development documents, which refer to local planning authorities and all their responsibilities under the new system, not to county councils.

Amendment No. 129 would omit clause 16(3) from the list in clause 15(4). I assumed that the intention was to enable local development documents prepared in accordance with the mineral and waste development scheme to which clause 15 refers to include all policies beyond county matters. I remind the Committee that clause 15 relates only to minerals and development schemes, whereas clause 16 goes beyond that. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman's logic was that if clause 16(3) was removed, the door would be left open for the county to turn its mineral and waste plan into something that might, if we blink, look more like a county structure plan rather than its current specific mineral and waste duties.

Amendment No. 130 would require clauses 28 and 30 on joint committees to apply to the minerals and waste development schemes as they do to all other schemes. Again, one could argue that that is inappropriate, given that the scope for joint committees is between local county and region.

Amendment No. 260 would omit clause 16(3) from the list in the provisions under clause 15(4) and insert a reference to clause 16(2). It has a different effect. First, it would prevent counties from including other such documents in their mineral and waste development schemes as they think appropriate. Secondly, as with amendment No. 129, the intention appears to broaden the narrowly focused minerals and waste development scheme to include policies that go beyond that. I

apologise in advance if my perception was malign and the furthest thing from the mind of the hon. Member for Spelthorne was that these fairly robust wrecking amendments, far from being restricted to minerals and waste, would ensure that the county councils' current position was pretty much reinvented almost by the back door by tacking them on to clause 15. If the hon. Gentleman has remembered what he meant and his intent is not malign, I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am deeply hurt. As if I would seek to wreck something produced by a Government that I hate and want to get rid of. That is the furthest thought from my mind. I had hoped that by claiming ignorance I might slip through the back door something that the Minister did not notice, but he has spotted what the proposal might be about.

I do not apologise for trying to involve county councils for as long as they exist. Of course they should be involved; we have had that debate before and if I try to reintroduce it you will rule me out of order, Mr. Amess, so I shall refer hon. Members to the Hansard report of these matters. There is still merit in the argument about involving county councils beyond waste and minerals, although the Minister is right to say that amendment No. 129 might open up the possibility for the county council and the two-tier system of local government to become more involved. If the amendment or something like it is not accepted, there is a distinct possibility that waste and mineral plans will be drawn up in isolation from the general considerations and will be impractical because they are not related to other matters. I accept that the amendment would go too far, but the Minister has once again given a reason why the spirit of what is suggested, apart from the malign bits, is right. It is fascinating that time after time the Opposition are told that they can improve the intent of the Bill only for our suggestions to be rejected. This is an unlistening Government as well as one that I would like to get rid of for other reasons.

Of course amendment No. 130 would involve county councillors in joint committees where there are two-tier authorities. Why not? What are the Government trying to achieve? Do they lack the courage to say that they hate county councils in a two-tier system and will get rid of them? They are not prepared to say that, but they are prepared so to emasculate them that they become impotent and a waste of time, and in return they hope that we will not notice what they are doing. That is a devious way of doing something; if they believe that it is right to scrub county councils in a two-tier system, let them say so and allow us to debate it, instead of cutting off any responsibility or role that they might have, bit by bit. If they succeed in doing that they will be wasting the taxpayer's money because we shall be sustaining a tier of local government that no longer has anything to do. That is another reason for being honest about the matter.

The Minister has rumbled me and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Paul Beresford rose—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The hon. Gentleman may challenge my decision but he will not get anywhere.

Question agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Of course, I accept your ruling, but may I ask whether, when you are minded to think that the amendments have been so thoroughly debated that there is nothing left to be desired by way of stand part debate, you could give an earlier indication? There were one or two matters—it would not have taken more than a minute or two—that I hoped to raise in the stand part debate, and I would have included them during an earlier debate on an amendment had I known. I realise the difficulty, but it would be helpful to have some warning as to how you are minded to act.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I entirely accept the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Indeed, it was being discussed quietly in the background. I was somewhat thrown by the procedure surrounding the last amendments. I shall bear it in mind in the future, because I understand that Opposition Members may wish to make further points.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. Should you find yourself in similar circumstances towards the end of the debate on the last set of amendments and you are trying to make up your mind, if the amendments are in my name I shall be willing to speak for longer if that will help you to arrive at a decision. Please let me know.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The point is made, but I think that we should move on to clause 16.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

clause 16, page 9, line 28, at end insert—

'( ) a strategic planning statement;

( ) the authority's Local Transport Plan;'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 196, in

clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Thank you, Mr. Amess. I was just trying to catch up on my speed reading. The Committee is progressing well—faster than I had anticipated. Amendment no. 89, like amendment No. 90 to clause 18, reflects environmental concerns. The amendments aim to ensure that local development documents identify and integrate the strategic planning issues in their areas and underpin the role of the land use planning system in protecting and enhancing the quality of the local environment. The

integration of transport, energy and natural resources objectives is key.

The LDDs must also be equipped to recognise and protect the tranquillity of the local landscape. The planning system has been the cornerstone of good planning and we feel that it should be strengthened. The replacement of local plans and unitary development plans with local development documents is a critical opportunity to bring in some reasonable, if not radical, improvements. Community involvement—ownership of the process—at local planning level gives the system an opportunity to deliver sustainable development.

The view of those who are deeply concerned in such matters—the CPRE is an example, and its thinking has driven the opinions that we are promoting on these Benches—is that local documents should be designed to deliver an integrated approach to strategic planning, particularly to the integration of planning and transport issues; a meaningful opportunity for community involvement, and participation in matters such as parish plans and village design statements.

We have already mentioned sustainable management of natural resources, but it does not seem to have made an impression on the Minister, who went to some lengths to say that he was not interested because that was being done elsewhere, and that it was sufficiently uninteresting to be omitted from the Bill. We also believe in the protection and enhancement of the special qualities of the countryside, its character, its tranquillity and—I know this because I live in a street with no lights—the darkness of its night sky. I cannot see the milky way because the southern hemisphere is too far away, but I can nearly imagine it on a dark night, and that is how many people in the countryside like it.

The centralisation of planning through the removal of the county and unitary level of strategic planning is likely to create a serious and damaging gulf between local and regional planning strategy decisions. We discussed this at some length—the Minister will deny it, but it is the case. The sheer impracticality of large regions dealing with the detailed scale of individual district councils will also create considerable difficulties. If we had been allowed to enlarge on the matter, either on the last amendments or on stand part, it would have been possible to point out that the disappearance of counties and the introduction of regions amplifies the point that I am trying to make: the local aspect of everything goes away except, of course, the nasty part, and the most contentious issues of waste and mineral extraction are, unsurprisingly, left with the counties.

I will return to the amendments before you draw me back to them, Mr. Amess. Where no directly elected regional assembly exists, centralised strategic planning will be in the hands of weird bodies called the RPBs. They have no democratic mandate and, as we have said time and again, it is inappropriate that they should make decisions. One sits in the south-east and sees a south-east organisation that starts at Milton Keynes and sweeps all the way round the south of London, Isle of Man and through to Kent.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Isle of Wight.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

No.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I stand corrected, but I am sure that my geography is basically correct.

The area is wide and sweeping, almost taking in Wales, stopping just on the edge. The effect is that have unelected people will make decisions about areas that they may never have visited and certainly do not know well. To some degree, we are trying to bridge that gap. It is also of central importance that local development documents have regard to the local authority's transport plan, because transport planning has a major impact on living patterns and the environment, a fact that we can see in Surrey perhaps better than anywhere else. The Government have decided to land about 33,000 extra houses there, and if the local authorities cannot find suitable space for them, the damage to roads, hospitals, the green belt and the general environment will be phenomenal. We need to take that into account.

We also want an opportunity for community involvement. The Minister says that there will be such an opportunity, but we want to push that. We also want the opportunity for parish plans and village design statements, particularly in Surrey. I say that because in my constituency alone, there are 30 villages and nearly the same number of parishes, and the local people take them seriously. We see busy people rushing back from London to parish meetings, even if they are being put off by the new rules and regulations that mean that they have to state every penny that they receive in gifts and donations. I apologise if I am sliding a little away from the point, Mr. Amess.

The other point that we touched on was sustainable natural resource management and mineral planning, and I was astonished that the Minister took no opportunity to impress and enforce the importance of it by utilising a simple additional amendment. I am sure that we could accept a simple amendment on Report to emphasise that. I know that the Minister represents a London constituency and that he has had 11 years of experience on a planning committee in London. I have also had experience of a planning committee in London, and I grew up in a countryside area where the nearest village, albeit one of two buildings, was three miles away and the nearest town two and a half hours' drive away. When we said that we were bringing in the sheep, we were talking about 7,500 lambing ewes, rather than the 30, 40 or 50 that is often the case in Surrey. However, Surrey has its rural areas, and we need to protect and enhance the countryside and its quality. The drive is to do that through the landscape character assessments.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to amendments Nos. 89 and 196? I am trying desperately hard to understand how his remarks relate to those amendments. He appears to be going somewhat wide of the mark, so I ask him

kindly to draw his remarks much more closely to the amendments Nos. 89 and 196.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I am sorry, Mr. Amess, if I have used my opportunity to stretch the point a little too far, but I think that those points needed to be made and the opportunity needed to be taken, given that the guillotine will come down later with a crunch. The point has been taken, and I will listen to the Minister's response with interest. If he could reply to the points to which I was allowed to stretch, I would be even more intrigued.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall try to stick exactly to amendments Nos. 89 and 196, although they are an odd pair. I broadly support the principle of amendment No. 89, but find amendment No. 196 slightly confusing.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Try moving it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Yes.

The problem is that most of us, at least in principle, have at one time or another favoured decisions being taken at the lowest possible level. The amendment would take away from local planning authorities the power to specify other documents that they think are appropriate. I would welcome more decision making at the lowest level. I have touched on the powers of the Secretary of State—perhaps I have gone further, so I shall not stray too far. However, his powers are perhaps too great and need to be moved down to the regions, and perhaps some of the powers prescribed for the regions need to be moved down to local authorities. I cannot support amendment No 196 because it seems to take those powers away. I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne is devastated by that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Absolutely.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I broadly support amendment No. 89, because it attempts to specify some of the things that should be included in the local development document. The local transport plan is important. I can see that the Minister will stand up and ask why we want a two-tier authority. The transport plan is made by the county council and not the district council, which is the body that produces the local development document.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Let me say it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister wants to say it himself. In broad terms that provides important co-ordination between the plans, and it is possible in single-tier authorities. It would be welcome it the Minister would explain how those plans will intermesh, so that we can ensure that there is no conflict between them.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall be as direct as I can. I support amendment No. 89 for two reasons. Subsection (1)(a) states:

''documents of such descriptions as are prescribed'',

but I am not sure what is going to be prescribed. The Minister may be able to help, but it is essential that there should be at least a strategic planning statement and a local authority transport plan. That is self-evidently why I support the amendment. The Minister

may say that those things will be prescribed in any case, but for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I would prefer them to be specifically mentioned in the Bill.

I would be prepared to support my hon. Friend on amendment No. 196 if he should press it. It would leave out subsection (2), which would act as a blank cheque, leaving matters to the whim of the local planning authority instead of being specific. The amendments have properly been grouped together, because if subsection (1) were a little more specific and explicit we could drop subsection (2).

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am in the awkward position of having to start my speech before lunch and remember this afternoon where I had got to. I listened with some care to the comments of the hon. Member for Ludlow on amendment No. 196. For a moment, I thought that

he had a point. Having reflected on what he said, I am afraid that he may have a reasonable point about the way in which the amendment is worded, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has brought me back to common sense by saying that the amendment contains a serious point, even if the wording is wrong. As it stands, it is perfectly possible for a local planning authority to run amok and require this, that and the other, way beyond what good common sense suggests. In an earlier debate the Minister expressed alarm at the thought that an authority would take too long. I am afraid—

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

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

Standing Committee G

Clause 16 - Local development documents

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 196, in

clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Perhaps you will allow me to say at the outset, Mr. Pike, that in your absence this morning the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) got a message that his wife was about to give birth, so he is not here. I am sure that we would all like to wish him and his wife well. We on the Conservative Benches have had to deal with a funeral, and those on the Liberal Benches have to deal with a birth, so if a Government Member is planning to get married shortly, and is missing for that reason, we shall have a full hand of such occurrences.

I raise that matter partly because I certainly want to send my best wishes to the hon. Gentleman, but also because a number of our forthcoming amendments are grouped with lead amendments under his name. My understanding is that it is perfectly in order for anybody to move such amendments, and from time to time it will probably be best for us to do so. The official Opposition might be many things, but we are not mind readers, so we shall do our level best to interpret some of the amendments. That is necessary because, as I understand the matter, the lead amendment must be moved in order to get to the amendments that are tucked in behind it.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

May I clarify that? The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: any member can move an amendment that has been tabled, and yes, the lead amendment is the key amendment. If a Member on the Conservative Benches has to move an amendment that he has not tabled, that is quite in order.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful for that, Mr. Pike.

I had just finished speaking to amendment No. 196 before lunch, and I had accepted that the way in which it was worded might not appeal to the Minister. However, what it seeks to achieve is important. Amendment No. 196 would leave out subsection (2), which states:

''The local planning authority may also specify in the scheme such other documents as they think are appropriate.''

Amendment No. 196 seeks to make the point that for the local authority to say, ''This is what we want,'' is an enormously wide power, and I do not see why it should be. The documents are either necessary or they are not. The Minister might not want to delete subsection (2), and could argue that there is a need for it. The sensible alternative—we could consider it on Report—is for the local planning authority also to specify in the scheme such other documents as they have good reason to think are appropriate. There should be a test of reasonableness.

As the Minister was saying this morning, although we like to think that all local authorities are brilliant, or if they are not exactly brilliant now, they are getting better, there will be some, as he sadly conceded, that will drag their feet. In an imperfect world there will, I fear, be planning authorities that occasionally seek to act unreasonably. Either there should not be a provision that gives them a completely free hand, or, if the Minister thinks that it is a good idea to give them some discretion, that should be constrained by a test of reasonableness. Amendment No. 196 seeks to achieve that.

Amendment No. 88 raises some different issues and relates to subsection (1), which states:

''Documents which must be specified in the local development scheme as local development documents are''—

and there here follows a list of what such things are. Surprisingly, all that it can bring itself to say is:

''documents of such descriptions as are prescribed''.

I assume that these are documents to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, and, at the risk of repeating myself, I have to say that this is rule by diktat. The sole arbiter of all this procedure will be the Secretary of State who will prescribe it. I hope that we can discuss what sort of documents the Minister has in mind. It could be anything; there is no test of reasonableness. Curiously—although perhaps not so curiously for this Government—the Government think it necessary to go one step beyond, to say that the Secretary of State can do what he likes.

Clause 16(1)(b) speaks of

''the local planning authority's statement of community involvement.''

That is really a genuflection to political correctness, as I see it. It is most curious that this is the only statement mentioned, because the number of documents that could be listed is legion, yet the only one worthy of mention in the eyes of the Government is a statement of community involvement. Before I am accused of all sorts of things that I do not intend, let me make it absolutely clear that I am all in favour of a statement of community involvement—but why is it the only one listed?

Amendment No. 89 would amplify the list a little. It would have been possible to table all sorts of amendments adding all sorts of documents, but for this debate we are right to list at least those two. Earlier this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said that it was important to remember, in the context of the listing of

strategic planning statements, that there might be a region that did not have an elected assembly. As things stand, the strategic planning statements, documents and policies are more than likely to be decided on by people who have no democratic credentials. Indeed, some of those involved seem to have no grasp of the issues either.

My hon. Friend pointed out that in the absence of an elected regional assembly, this would be a sensible way of requiring a local planning authority to take on the role of making strategic planning statements. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I anticipate that the Minister might be tempted to say, as he has in the past, that a local planning authority covers far too small an area for any regional or strategic thinking. However, an argument against dismissing the amendment is that he might consider the idea of charging joint committees of local planning authorities with the job. The joint committee could cover the entire area of the Government's artificial region—and they are artificial because the south-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley suggested, extends from Milton Keynes to the Isle of Man—or rather, the Isle of Wight. What on earth bits of Surrey, and bits of my constituency, have in common with the Isle of Wight when it comes to strategic planning, I do not know. The areas are so artificial.

If, however, we are to be forced down the route of strategic planning statements for areas, it is important that they be determined either by local planning authorities or by joint committees of local planning authorities. I know that the argument regularly trotted out against joint committees is that although the people on them may be elected, the joint committees themselves are not. At least, however, the members of a joint committee that has been formed to produce a planning statement will have been elected. Therefore the amendment standing in our name is worthy of consideration.

In reforming the planning process, we urgently need to emphasise transport plans. At the moment we tend to have wish lists that say, ''It would be a good idea if we did this.'' What they all too often lack is an indication of when that will happen and when it will be funded. Plans may make general statements to the effect that it would be nice to build a bypass here and a bypass there, and that we would need this, that and the other. However, without a coherent planning statement that makes it crystal clear which transport improvements will happen when, it is difficult to know when it will be best to release land for development, because no one will know when the roads and the railways will be available. It is therefore entirely proper that we should include a transport plan in the Bill.

For the same reasons, it would be wrong, for the purposes of this debate, to leave the determination of local transport plans to unelected people in some distant place—be it Milton Keynes, the Isle of Wight, Southampton, Brighton or wherever else the Government think it sensible to run an artificial region from.

The Government may not like the detailed wording of the amendments, and I can only repeat that the Opposition do not have the services of parliamentary draftsmen. However, our intention is to make it clear that we should not simply leave it to the Secretary of State to prescribe whatever documents he likes without at least setting out what they might be. If the Minister is not prepared to accept our suggestions, I hope that he will at least tell us what documents the Secretary of State might prescribe.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Welcome to our proceedings, Mr. Pike. I am sure that they will be as much fun this afternoon as they were this morning.

Let me start by saying that Labour Members entirely associate themselves with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) about the hon. Member for Ludlow and his breaking news, which he announced after our previous sitting. We all wish him and his wife Godspeed and the best of luck with their delivery. I shall resist the temptation to take up the trite remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris), who wanted me to make a crack about there being at least one Liberal Democrat who has enjoyed a labour experience. [Hon. Members: ''Oh.''] That is why I resisted. I will get a new joke writer, who will not be allowed to touch on the issue.

Unusually, the problem with the amendments is not the wording or the paucity of the draftsmanship—I feel like getting my violin out every time we hear about the Opposition not having an army of draftsmen to assist them. I am tempted to reply that they had one for 18 years, and they still did not do a terribly good job, so what they do now is grist for the mill. However, the difficulty with the present amendments is the substance, not the wording. As I shall explain, a core strategy—it would, I assume, roughly equate to the strategic planning statement, although the Bill does not elaborate on that—must be part and parcel of the local development documents that make up the development plan.

As regards

''the authority's Local Transport Plan'',

the term ''the authority'' is not defined, and we can only assume that ''Local Transport Plan'' means the existing local transport plan. As I shall explain, the provision would not apply to all authorities, and would effectively be a bidding statement. Furthermore, it would not be terribly useful, given that transport is clearly a key part of the core planning strategy, which is an element of the local development documents.

The first document proposed in amendment No. 89 is therefore already included in the Bill. I will elucidate further what the local development documents should incorporate, as I was specifically asked to do. The second document is not a planning document and would not cover all the authorities affected by the clause. Amendment No. 89 is therefore not appropriate.

Amendment No. 196 would remove the local planning authority's discretion to include such documents as it thinks appropriate in its local

development scheme. Again, there should be nothing terribly troubling about the proposal in the clause. It refers to additional documents that the local planning authority considers appropriate in the context of its local development scheme. They will not be part of the development plan, but they will be the rough equivalent of current supplementary planning guidance. It is more appropriate that they stay. If a local planning authority wanted to produce local development documents that were unreasonable or capricious, the Secretary of State could direct it to modify its local development scheme to prevent it from doing so, even though he supposedly has malign powers. There will be an inspection or review of the integrity of the local development scheme, as we have already discussed.

Regulations will determine which documents local authorities will be required to include. As I am rapidly learning, that is essentially what ''as are prescribed'' means. The first document will be the core strategy, which will contain the core policies for delivering the spatial strategy for the whole of the local authority's area. It will be supported by reasonable justification, as is the case for development plans at the moment. As I learned during my time on a planning committee, the paragraphs of reasonable justification that one rushes through, looking to get to the next policy involvement, are in many cases just as important and integral a part of the document.

The policy should be location specific, rather then site specific, and for that reason it may be more appropriately illustrated by a key diagram, although authorities may choose to illustrate it on the Ordnance Survey-based proposals map. Some of them may need to be expressed as criteria-based policies.

Secondly, site-specific policies and proposals including a proposals map for the whole of the local authority's area will be required. That should set out any details of any site-specific policies, outside the actual area plans. The map will be, as it is now, a proposals plan map that shows existing and revised designations of areas of land, such as conservation areas and green belt land. Everyone who has seen a unitary development map will know the sort of designations that there are.

The map will also define the sites for future land uses, or developments and the areas to which specific policies apply. The map should also show the locations of any proposed or actual area action plan. Some authorities may choose not to have any area action plans. Such plans might need to be defined in more detail on separate, inset maps, which would show all the proposals in the area covered by the inset. The map should be Ordnance Survey-based.

Rather than submitting those two types of development plan documents separately, local planning authorities are free to include them in one integrated development plan document. In such instances, the end result would be similar to the proposed arrangements in Wales that we discussed earlier.

These are only two of the compulsory features of the local development plan. If authorities wish to propose area action plans, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) referred earlier, those too would be development plan documents that should be identified in the scheme. These plans will be for key areas of change or conservation. Site-specific area plans will be needed for areas in which there is a concentration of proposals for change. Such area action plans could cover a town centre plan, or a plan for a small town or village where change is anticipated or specific conservation measures are required.

The provision that amendment No. 196 would delete allows local authorities to prepare and include in their local development framework less formal documents that are equivalent to current supplementary planning guidance under the present system. These would include site development briefs and would be adopted through shorter, simpler procedures, but would be afforded less weight in the consideration of proposals for development. However, they may be a material consideration. By deleting the subsection, we would limit the effectiveness and strength of the local development documents that a local planning authority puts together.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am partially persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am full of admiration for the way that he is single-handedly carrying the weight of the Bill. I appreciate that very much. Although I am beginning to accept why amendment No. 89 might not be necessary, I do not know why subsection (1)(b), which requires

''the local planning authority's statement of community involvement'',

is necessary, as clause 17(1) states:

''The local planning authority must prepare a statement of community involvement.''

I am not sure why that needs to be stressed twice. Although I begin to take the Minister's other points, I think that it is unnecessary.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is because the statement of community involvement sits between the development plan documents, the compulsory nature of which I outlined, and the subsequent supplementary planning guidance, which can be a material consideration, but which is not a development plan. The SCI is included in the Bill, and affords duties to the local planning authority that did not previously exist. That needs to be said far more than simply—''Oh, by the way, the SCI is a document that is as much a statutory obligation as discretionary.'' The SCI is not strictly a development plan document, in the sense that it is not about land use planning or the spatial dimension, but it is a fundamental, statutory element of the process of drawing together the local development scheme. The SCI is a necessary document, but needs to be separated from the development plan and supplementary guidance.

Given both the core documents that deal with strategic planning as part of the compulsory elements of the local development documents and the nature of the local transport plan, amendment No. 89 is unnecessary. Also, ''authority'' is not defined—it is

not even ill defined—and will thus cover only part of the local planning authority. The rest of the amendment is not terribly useful either. Amendment No. 196 would unnecessarily restrict the efficacy of the local development scheme and framework that a local planning authority comes up with. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will resist both the amendments, despite the eloquence with which they were introduced.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

Several times in Committee, I have suggested to the Minister that there be probing amendments to inspire a response. We had a response, and it was helpful. It has clarified matters and has even given my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—the expert sitting over my left-hand shoulder—some satisfaction. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 197, in

clause 16, page 9, line 32, leave out '(taken as a whole)'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 198, in

clause 16, page 9, line 33, leave out '(however expressed)'.

Amendment No. 229, in

clause 16, page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (6).

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall speak to all three amendments, even though amendment No. 229 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 touch on issues that we have dealt with before. I am grateful to the Minister, as I received a copy of the letter that he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, which addressed amendment No. 198 on the issue of ''however expressed''.

The Minister undertook to give us the legal precedent for ''however expressed''. That was helpful, and I thank him for doing so. The only problem is that the document I received contains what I know as a sheep-stealing argument. That is, would it be a good idea to reintroduce capital punishment for stealing sheep? The justification is whether we used to do that—there is a legal precedent for that punishment, therefore it is a good idea. All the letter does is give the precedent, but gets us no further on the question of why the provision is a good idea. I am sorry for that objection, despite the letter.

I now accept that it is not the first time in Christendom that ''however expressed'' has been used. However, I still contend that there is no need for it, and that there was probably no need in the past either. The letter contains several paragraphs on where ''however expressed'' can be found and some interesting background about previous legislation, which is not relevant to the debate. However, our attention is drawn to paragraph 17(3) of part II of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which states:

''In this paragraph 'existing policy' means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a local plan mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).''

That is exactly my point. The relevant information is either in the plan or it is not. The phrase ''however expressed'' is unnecessary. If I read the provision without those words, leaving out what the Minister wants us to keep, it still makes perfect sense. We have been told where it was used in the past, and another example has been provided of that, with which I will not burden the Committee. Perhaps I asked the wrong question when I asked for the legal precedent. We should have asked for the legal justification and the reason why it was necessary to use the phrase in the past. I have seen no explanation to persuade me. I still want to press amendment No. 198, because we still have not been told why the words ''however expressed'' are needed in the Bill.

Amendment No. 197 would omit ''taken as a whole''. Subsection (3) states:

''The local development documents must (taken as a whole) set out the authority's policies''.

What is wrong with saying, ''The local development documents must set out the authority's policies''? I do not see what the words ''taken as a whole'' add. The documents either set out the policies or they do not. If they do not, they have not met the requirements of the Bill. Will the Minister have another stab at telling us why we need this verbiage? Surely good legislation is brief legislation. Racking up extra phrases just because it was done in the past is relying on a sheep-stealing argument. I am not impressed with it.

The hon. Member for Ludlow has done us a favour. I feel chastened that I did not think of the point myself. Amendment No. 229 would leave out subsection (6), the first words of which are:

''Regulations under this section may prescribe''.

I have hunted through the rest of the clause for the creation of regulation-making powers. Nowhere in clause 16 do I see the grant of powers, which would presumably go to the Secretary of State, to make regulations. Where is the authority to make the regulations in subsection (6) to be found? If there is no authority there is a hole in the Bill and it will be necessary, if the Government want to persist with the matter, to provide somewhere in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to section 16.

At least subsection (6) says that the regulations ''may'' prescribe various matters. That is some progress. The draftsmen had calmed down a bit by then and were less draconian in their approach. Perhaps they should be reprimanded by the Minister for failing to provide a jackboot on this occasion, given that a little discretion is allowed. I am grateful for small mercies. However, I became very suspicious on reading paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (6), which set out what can be prescribed. The heart of the matter is paragraph (b), under which, if any regulations exist, the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe

''the form and content of the local development documents''.

I find that extraordinary. Here we have a Bill that sets out to establish that local authorities must be allowed to produce local development plans. The purpose of the Bill, so the argument runs, is to devolve power to local government. The Secretary of State will tell the authorities, ''Go away and develop the local development document—but when you do, this is what you must put in it. It does not matter what you think or what you find, or what the local circumstances are. Here are my directions as to the content of the plan.''

What is the point of having local government if the Secretary of State says what is in the document? The Secretary of State's power to prescribe the plan's content is amazing. I hope that the Minister can tell me that the provision means something other than its content: he might mean its typeface, its number of pages or the quality of its paper. If, however, it means that the Secretary of State can prescribe the plans words, we might as well as go home. We will be wasting our time if the Secretary of State is to write every local plan by determining what goes in and what stays out.

The hon. Member for Ludlow has done us a huge favour by suggesting that we should delete that power. Unless we can be reassured that ''content'' has a meaning other than that in my dictionary, I am bitterly opposed to subsection (6).

Subsection (6)(c) also concerns me. It states that by regulations, which do not appear to exist, somebody—presumably the Secretary of State—may prescribe

''the time at which any step in the preparation of any such document must be taken.''

This morning, we have spent a lot of time being told by the Minister that our proposals to put timetables into the process were wrong and inappropriate, but now we have discovered a timetable. He told us why our amendments to impose timetables were wrong, and now he will have to argue why an amendment taking out a timetable is wrong, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

In relation to amendment No. 229, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—I almost said my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—and I shall not detain the Committee.

I hope that my point is not thought to be flippant, but I want to return to amendments Nos. 197 and 198, which would delete unnecessary phrases. I was grateful to be told that there is a precedent for the phrase ''however expressed'' in the principal 1990 Act. In the gentlest possible way, I want to remind the Minister that when we were in Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, that Bill introduced for the first time—in other words, there was no precedent—the horrific word ''chair'' to describe what I would prefer to call the ''chairman'' of the assembly. A ''chair'' is an inanimate object—incidentally, my surname is ''Chapman'' rather than ''Chap''.

Where it suits the Government, they forget precedent and bring in a new word, which creates great emotion among Government and Opposition Members. If I could wave a wand and ask the Minister to do something between now and Report, I would ask him to go through the Bill to see what phrases he could take out of it. He could take out many phrases, which would reduce the size of the Bill and take nothing away from the Government's intentions. I hope that he feels that he can at least accept amendments Nos. 197 and 198.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall probably resist the hon. Gentleman's delightful invitation to do even more work filleting the Bill's language, although I might accept it on a subsequent Bill. We had great fun on the Greater London Authority Bill, but it was a tad unkind to describe the current chair of the GLA, Trevor Phillips, as an inanimate object, although I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended to do.

The short answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Spelthorne is clause 87(1)(a). The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that I should have clocked the Isles of Scilly question, which nearly always appears at the back of Bills. Making general prescribing powers through regulation is a common feature of legislation: in this case, they are built into the Bill in clause 87(1)(a).

I cannot ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments, which would not achieve the objectives sought by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. My powers of persuasion may have failed miserably in respect of the appropriateness of words and phrases in the Bill. In respect of my letter, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked for precedent—not for a rehash of my justification for the phrase—and that is precisely what he got.

We believe that amendments Nos. 197 and 198 are not useful. Local development documents must be taken as a whole in respect of the development and use of land. When subsequently applied to specific purposes, the policies in the documents should be viewed as interlocking and taken as a whole. That is the measure against which applications should be determined and is preferable to picking and choosing.

I fully accept much of the annoyance of parliamentary counsel and other lawyers that the language is clumsy. If we start from the premise that English and Welsh legislation is written in English, we are in for a deeply unsatisfactory experience in Committee. The phrase ''taken as a whole'' is necessary to bind all the elements in the local development documents together.

In respect of amendment No. 198, the phrase ''however expressed'' is necessary to get beyond the land use, development and control elements of the documents and to gain the wider spatial dimension, largely for the same reasons as suggested when we debated clause 1.

Amendment No. 229 would remove the specific power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out

which descriptions of local development documents are development plan documents'',

the ''form and content'' of such documents and so forth. It should reassure hon. Gentlemen to know that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor I want to write everybody's local development documents. The regulations are definitely not about allowing the Under-Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister to insist on the content and substance of every local development document in the country. We do not want such a power.

The prescriptions in subsection (6)(a), (b) and (c) are simply an attempt to secure some consistency across the country in respect of the descriptions, the form and content—what needs to be in them rather than the substance—and the time taken in preparation. I alluded to timetable regulations this morning in rejecting their application to various parts of the process.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Before the Minister moves on from the issue of content, he has not answered the point. He said that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor he wants to prescribe the content. I take him at his word and I am glad to hear that, but why, then, does he want the power in the Bill? The Minister says that he does not want it, but he is not prepared to take it out. He should be thinking of a different word from ''content''.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I think that ''content'' will suffice. What I should perhaps have added to my statement that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor I want or seek a power is that it will not be made explicit in regulations that we have the power to write the content of local development documents. ''Form and content'' means the formal shape that the documents should take and what should be included in them, and it covers headings and sub-headings.

I am assured that the provision means that I will not be up until all hours writing Spelthorne's local development documents and that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, I will not be issued a blue pencil that allows me to rewrite documents. The provision is simply about achieving consistency, which is very important.

As hon. Members with any experience of planning know, it is important to distinguish clearly between development plan documents, with all that they entail, and documents that are supplementary to them, which may include material planning matters, not least because the non-development plan documents, or supplementary planning guidance, and the other elements that will be part of the local development documents that we shall introduce, will not be subject to independent testing. They are not as rigorously examined as development plan documents but are still important, in that they capture all that is necessary for the local development framework of particular areas.

I have already dealt with policies, proposals, area action plans and other site-specific elements such as the SCI. It is important that we achieve some common standard among local authorities of form and content

and the timing at which particular steps are taken in the preparation of documents. For that reason, subsection (6) must remain in clause 16. The hon. Member for Ludlow may have done us a service by prompting a debate to tease out greater clarity on our intention, but the subsection is important to the integrity of clause 16. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 197, 198 and 229.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have listened with interest to the Minister's comments. In the past, I have often been told to look further in a Bill, and I have always said on such occasions that it would be sensible if general definitions and general powers were laid out. Certainly, general definitions appear at the beginning of the Bill. The general powers would be much more useful at the beginning than at the end. In due course, we shall deal with clause 87. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to reflect upon it now. It enables me to table an amendment to rename clause 87, entitled ''Regulations and orders'', the jackboot clause, because it is where the dictatorial powers lie. However, that is for another day.

Let me deal with the Minister's attempt to explain why the verbiage is necessary. He said that it was necessary to take the measure as a whole. I would have thought that self-evident, but the Minister considers it necessary to spell out the obvious aspects of ''as a whole''. If we are to have legislation that spells out the obvious, which seemed to be his argument, I am surprised that the Bill does not include a requirement that all plans be written in English. It is self-evident that they should be written in English, and the Government do not think it necessary to say so, but the Minister is busily saying that even though something else is self-evident, he wants it left in the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman should hold his fire, because I suspect that significant amendments on part 6 will suggest that documents should not be written in English only.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I shall enter into debate on Welsh matters with some trepidation. However, in the absence of an amendment that documents should be written in Welsh, it is self-evident that they will be written in English. The Minister may like to reflect on that. If he were to spell out every obvious thing, the Bill would be five times as thick as it is.

The more I listened to the Minister's comments, the more convinced I became that I was right and he was wrong. He sought to invent a new definition of ''content.'' In the end, he referred to headings. I thought that he really meant the scope of the document and I have no difficulty with that, but he insisted on ''content'' and said that that could mean approximately what ought to be included here.

As the Minister helpfully cited precedent, let me helpfully cite precedent too. If he were to go to the newsagent on the corner by Portcullis House and buy a box of Dairy Milk chocolates, he would find inside a list of the contents, which would describe what was in the box. If, when he came to munch his way through

his chocolates, he found that the description of the contents did not match what was in the box, the manufacturers would be liable to be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. There is a precedent in law that suggests that ''content'' means something exact. The contents of a box of chocolates are exactly what is in the box and no more or less. It is not a case of someone saying, ''If you are lucky, you might find the following chocolates,'' or, ''The box might contain fudge, but it might not.'' That is not what the contents are about; that is the scope. It is fine to say, ''Some of the things that we make will be in the box,'' but such a statement is not a statement of the contents.

I urge the Minister to reflect, because he says that he does not want the power to prescribe the contents, but, to me—and in my dictionary—''contents'' means simply, ''exactly what is in here.'' He might mean an index, or all sorts of other things. I support his argument that it would be helpful to ensure that all plans are roughly the same. However, whether he likes it or not, unless he is prepared to change ''content,'' he will be kept up all night writing Spelthorne's plan. I will like what a Conservative council writes, but he might not and might therefore say, ''I have the power to control the content.'' He has not persuaded me on that point. I urge him to talk to the lawyers and the draftsmen to find out whether they are persuaded, even if he is not, that this is a clumsy way in which to do something reasonable. Unless he changes the wording, he will either run foul of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or be writing plans all night.

I have listened carefully and thought about the matter, and I do not want to vote on the single point of ''content'' with all the other amendments. I would consider returning to the matter on Report, as a separate issue on its own, when perhaps we might vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 230, in

clause 16, page 10, line 9, at end insert 'or'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

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

No. 199, in

clause 16, page 10, line 10, at end add—

'(8) Decisions on whether to approve documents as required by subsection (7)(b) must be taken within 6 months of the adoption of the resolution required by subsection (7)(a).'.

No. 202, in

clause 18, page 10, line 42, at end insert—

'and approved by the Secretary of State under section 16(7)(b)'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow will not mind me moving his amendment, which is the lead amendment. The others stand in my name. Initially, when I considered his amendment, I thought, ''What is the significance of adding the word 'or'?'' I hope that I do the hon. Gentleman justice. I will explain my understanding of the matter and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; indeed, he will enjoy doing so. Subsection (7) states:

''A document is a local development document only in so far as it or any part of it—

(a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development document;

(b) is approved by the Secretary of State under section 20 or 26.''

As with other legislation, the wording implies ''and,'' even though ''and'' is not included. Thus subsection (7) implies that for the conditions to be fulfilled both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to be met. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman wants it to be one or the other. It would be helpful to have on the record that ''and'' is implied. We need to know why the Minister considers that it should be both rather than one or the other. When the hon. Member for Ludlow returns, he will be able to read the Minister's reasons for resisting the amendment.

Amendment No. 199 seeks to introduce a timetable into subsection (7). The document is local only in so far as it is adopted by resolution and/or approved by the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to impose a limit on the time by which resolutions are passed or approved by the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State have been known to sit on matters for a long time. For instance, the inspector sat on the terminal 5 public inquiry report for a long time, and so did the Secretary of State.

I do not equate the local planning exercise with public inquiries into major infrastructure projects, but the same principle applies. The process of taking decisions—of acting upon the work that has been done, which can sometimes take a long time—needs to be timetabled. The Minister may think that six months is unreasonable; he may say that it should be only a few weeks or even, on occasions, as long as 12 months. I am not deeply wedded to it being six months. I am trying to get the Minister to consider the principle of having a time limit, on having to say how long it should take to complete the process of approval.

I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of the amendment, although he may want to come forward with his own version on Report. However, it is important that we do not have an open-ended time scale that would allow people to sit on documents for ever.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I want to be as brief as possible. I want first to refer to amendment No. 230, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne correctly pointed out that subsection (7) requires that the document is a local development document only in so far as it is

''adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local planning document'',

and is

''approved by the Secretary of State under section 20 or 26.''

I go along with my hon. Friend, and say that it ought to include ''and'', which is implied, as well as ''or''. However, I wish to make a further point.

I am sorry to have to return to the matter, but in an attempt to make the Bill no longer than it need be I put this simple point to the Minister. If a document has not been adopted by resolution of the local planning authority, it cannot go to the Secretary of State to be approved by him. The provision is quite unnecessary, unless the Minister can persuade me

otherwise. Why do we need subsection (7)(a)? It could be dealt with simply, and without ambiguity, if the clause stated that a document was a local development document only in so far as it or any part of it had been approved by the Secretary of State under sections 20 or 26.

I turn to the matter of placing time restraints on the Secretary of State. Not only is six months the right maximum, but it is essential, to achieve fairness, that restraints and challenges are imposed on the Secretary of State as well as on the local planning authority. I shall not rehearse the arguments—we heard them earlier—but I am sure that the provision would command greater respect if self-imposed time restraints were placed on the Secretary of State.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

I rise, with some hesitation, to take issue with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I accept that English is, near enough, my second language, but one matter that rather disturbs me is that the word ''or'' would be a double-edged sword. The Minister will not like a provision enabling the Secretary of State's intentions to be overridden at the beginning. On the other hand, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to override the local authorities' decisions, forcing them to accept his wishes whether or not they had adopted such a plan.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, however. We have consistently hammered the point, and I hope that we shall continue to do so, about the need for timetables to be imposed on Ministers if they are imposed on authorities. In this day and age when they are dictated to so much, local authorities understand timetables. They must work to them much more than the Government do. It is important that they know where they stand early on.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I am very pleased that he managed to get back for at least part of our deliberations today. His colleagues will explain why the hon. Member for Ludlow is absent, but I ask hon. Members not to pursue partisan remarks about that, because he has good reasons. We could have a row with Plaid Cymru, whose representative has yet to grace us with his presence at all, but that is by the by.

The debate on amendment No. 230 has been interesting and I am minded to give the matter further consideration, given the strength of feeling about it. I suspect that the word ''or'' would be superfluous, but if the amendment is withdrawn I shall certainly consider it further. When clause 16(7) is read together with clause 22, which deals with the adoption of local development documents, and clauses 20 and 26, which deal with the Secretary of State's powers of intervention and default, it is clear that paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 16(7) are not cumulative—so it would not be appropriate to link them with the word ''and''. The word ''or'' would be superfluous, I suggest; one or the other would happen. Either, as I think the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, the local development document would be adopted by

resolution of the local planning authority—there being nothing wrong with it and the Secretary of State having decided that there was no need to intervene, give direction or call it in—or it would go along the other route, and be approved by the Secretary of State following a call-in and subsequent discussion. Both would not happen, but neither are they alternatives. I shall certainly think about the use of the word ''or'', but I suspect that examination of clauses 17, 20 and 26 will reveal that it would be unnecessary.

Amendments Nos. 199 and 202 are, I think, based on a misunderstanding of the current and proposed planning system. Under the current system, when a local plan, UDP or structure plan is adopted by the local authority, that is it. It is not then subject to a process of approval by the Secretary of State. I can draw on my nasty metro-centric, non-rural experience of being involved once or twice in the UDP system. When the document is formally adopted by the borough, that is the end of it. Amendment No. 199 would put a six-month limit on the Secretary of State to do something that he is not obliged to do under either the existing system or the new one.

Perhaps the provision should establish a six-month period in which to read the document or to decide whether it should be used to prop up a table, rather as a copy of ''Dod's'' is being used to prop up a rickety table in the middle of this Room. No duty exists, so there is no need to impose a time limit. The Secretary of State has no role after the adoption of a UDP, and the existing state of affairs will prevail under the new system.

Even though the amendments are unnecessary, the issue has come up once or twice before, so I shall spend a minute or two discussing the principle of setting a deadline for the Secretary of State to approve LDDs, whatever the trigger point might be. It would not be sensible to set a deadline for the Secretary of State in this matter, because the length of time that he will need to consider an LDD will vary, depending on the point of preparation that it has reached when he issues the direction to call in the document; the subject matter of the LDD; and the reason for the call-in. That is a straightforward and, I hope, obvious point. Similar issues relate to the Secretary of State's default powers. It would not be sensible to try to impose in primary legislation deadlines for every possible scenario or outcome.

I can offer the hon. Member for Spelthorne some comfort, however. Given the importance that we attach to timely revisions of plans and up-to-date policies, the Secretary of State will proceed as speedily as is consistent with full and proper consideration of the issues. In a broader context, outside the Bill, hon. Members will know that there have been self-imposed deadlines on the Ministers in the Department who are responsible for planning to turn round applications that have been recovered or called in. We are talking about the tail end of a very lengthy process, so we are committed to turning round such applications as rapidly as we can. We certainly try to do that.

I will consider whether, as a consequence of the Bill passing through both Houses of Parliament, there should be a self-imposed duty on Ministers in the broadest sense in respect of any call-in of LDDs. That would be appropriate only if there were that element of power, limited though it is, coming back to the centre in what is, after all, a fully fledged decentralising planning Bill. With those assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am grateful to the Minister: at long last, we seem to be making a little progress. Two offers to reconsider on one group of amendments is a joy that I had not expected to come my way. It perhaps grieves me slightly that his first offer—he clearly said that he would come back and do something on Report—related to an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow. It is perhaps my misfortune that I achieve my greatest successes when using someone else's amendment, but I believe in learning new tricks from all sorts of people.

I suppose that, having moved a Liberal amendment, I should now rush out and issue press releases, taking the credit not only for moving it so eloquently and persuading the Minister but for picking it up in the first place. The hon. Gentleman would surely have done that to me in true Liberal Democrat fashion had the roles been reversed—[Interruption.] It is always the case that Government and Conservative Members squabble about many things, but as soon as there is a chance to beat the Liberal party over the head, there is support on both sides of the Committee. At least I have got one thing right in the course of these proceedings.

I am also grateful to the Minister in another respect. I may put more words into his mouth than he would wish, but I think that I heard a little movement towards the idea of timetables. He might not like to call them that, but let us be thankful for small mercies. I welcome what he said, and I do not want to spoil the offer by being churlish about it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, and to all the other members of the Committee for your indulgence in allowing me to be absent this morning for the important funeral of a very long-standing neighbour, and the father of my best man, in Suffolk. I was very pleased to be able to attend and I am particularly grateful to my colleagues, who must have had a hugely increased work load in standing in for me and dealing with all the amendments.

In a sense, it is a little indulgent of me to want to participate in the stand part debate, because I have not heard the whole debate on the clause, so I apologise if anything that I say is repetitious. Having said that, I want to participate because these provisions are some of the most important in the Bill. We have dealt with part 1, which deals with the regional aspect, and we

now come to part 2, which deals with the local aspect.

One of the major problems with the present planning system is the delay in producing the local plan and the structure plan. The new system is designed to replace the local plans. I worry that we will replace one system that does not work with another system that will be even slower. It will be slower because of the scheme introduced in clause 14, the documents introduced in clause 16 and the planning documents introduced in clause 18, covering all the consultations and timetables, and the Secretary of State's powers of revision, revocation and renewal. Before we accept clause 16, I hope that the Minister will assure Opposition Members on and, more importantly, planning practitioners in the widest sense, that his proposals will work in a more streamlined way than the present system, allowing more consultation with less central involvement. However, I cannot see how the new system—the introduction of those three separate elements to replace one element—will work better. I fear that we will pass this legislation in the knowledge that it will slow the whole system down.

The planning system is vital for the economic growth of this country; for individuals who wish to carry out small developments on their own houses; and for individuals, partnerships and businesses that wish to carry out larger developments. The Green Paper makes it perfectly clear that 90 per cent. of all planning applications are eventually refused; it is the remaining 10 per cent. of controversial applications that we are setting up a system to deal with. It will take a long time to deal with those controversial applications. I know that the Bill contains powers for the Secretary of State to intervene to try to make things quicker, and powers that allow the inspector to intervene. However, I suspect that we will rue the day that we agreed to this clause.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I simply do not agree with that. With the local development scheme and the local development documents inside and outside the development plan, and with the other elements in the clause that will prescribe what comprises the local development documents that are part of the development plan, I feel that the proposals for the ways in which applications for planning permission will principally be judged in any area action plans involving major change or conservation will, by the time everything is explained through regulation as well as through the Bill, give greater clarity, speed and flexibility to a planning system that is rooted in a wider spatial dimension that goes beyond land use. As I have said before, the Bill will also set out the matters to which the planning authority must have regard when preparing the LDD. We must not forget the sustainability appraisals that must govern the proposals in each of the local development documents; or the requirement for LDDs generally to conform with the regional spatial strategy or the spatial development strategy in London; or the requirement for the authority to prepare an annual monitoring report on the implementation of the local

development scheme; or the provision for authorities to work together, which we will come to shortly.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to suggest that the local development documents are a key element of the Bill and the new system. However, with all that is in clause 16 and subsequent clauses, I firmly believe that the regional spatial strategy and local development framework two-tier planning system will work effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Statement of community involvement

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 292, in

clause 17, page 10, line 16, after 'persons', insert 'or businesses'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

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

No. 200, in

clause 17, page 10, line 16, at end insert

'live in the area covered by the local development scheme or'.

No. 201, in

clause 17, page 10, line 18, leave out 'their area' and insert

'the area covered by the development scheme'.

No. 231, in

clause 17, page 10, line 24, at end insert—

'(4) the Secretary of State may issue guidance to local planning authorities on the nature and extent of the community involvement to be provided in a statement of community involvement.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Clause 17 moves from the technicalities of what is in the plans and what documents have to be produced to how the community is to be involved.

The lead amendment is a probing amendment. In a sense, we are discussing the clause in a vacuum. We have already teased out of the Minister the fact that he has appointed the consultants Llewellyn Davies to advise on the framework of the community involvement. It is regrettable that the Bill is being rushed through the House and that we are therefore discussing these matters in the absence of the consultants' report. The Minister said that he would let us have sight of it before the Bill passed through all its stages and I therefore make a special plea to him that it should be available in reasonable time before Report. It would be helpful to know from Government business managers when that is likely to be. Will it be before or after the half-term break?

In the absence of the consultants' report, we are left to speculate about what is in the Government's mind in respect of the statement of community involvement. The amendment attempts to probe whether business will have a role. Businesses have a vital economic interest in what is planned for their area and they should be involved in drawing up the plans and

documents, but it is not clear from the clause whether they will be involved.

Amendment No. 288 refers to

''the economic development plan which has been adopted by the authority and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region in which the area of the authority is situated.''

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Amendment No. 288 is not in this group of amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I apologise, Mr. Pike. I am on the wrong page in my notes. That is the problem with being absent.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

We are considering amendment No. 292 and the others in the group.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Amendment No. 200 was also tabled to tease out from the Minister who will be involved and who will be entitled to be involved in the community statement. Will it be those who own property in the area, who live in the area, who have a business in the area? We need answers to those questions. Amendment No. 201 also seeks to discover whether it is those who live in the area or those who live outside but who have businesses in the area who are covered by the development scheme.

Through amendment No. 231 the hon. Member for Ludlow wants the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We know all about guidance as it appears throughout the Bill, but as time goes on and things become more complex it is important for the local authorities who draw up the schemes and plans to have a precise idea what the statement will involve.

The Minister will no doubt have thought fairly carefully about what sections of the community will be involved, what role they will have in a particular area, and whether and how they will be consulted. He resisted my amendment on statements of community involvement for a region. I ask him to consider best practice, which will allow us to see how each local authority carries out the important function of preparing its statement of community involvement. Preparations will vary from one community to another, and we want to ensure that best practice is followed, because unless the local community feels involved it will become alienated from the planning system and more and more disenchanted with local authorities and other bodies involved in the system.

Paul Beresford (Conservative, Mole Valley)

One thing that is becoming apparent to local government is that it is required to consult on just about everything. Consultation involves community involvement, and there is a distinct feeling of consultation fatigue. I want to support my hon. Friend on the importance of the broad spectrum. Local authorities should be made absolutely aware of some of the basic requirements, which must include types of individuals.

The Minister will know from his 11 years on a planning committee that there are certain individuals whose lives seem to revolve around their interest in planning and planning objections. They turn up for every planning committee meeting, but they are not representative of the community. The business community, which is so busy at the moment trying

to earn enough money to pay its taxes, is inclined to glance at proposals and ignore them unless a specific point, which may relate only to it, hits it.

My hon. Friend is after an understanding that the Government are prepared to pressurise local authorities into involving business and the real community. When many people talk about the community, they forget that the business community provides the finance that directly or indirectly provides the buildings that come from the planning.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that the more one studies the Bill, the more one thinks it premature not only because no regional assemblies have been elected but because the necessary preparatory work—he mentioned consultancy—which the Government have been doing has not been concluded.

The Committee has been cut down to 12 sittings, which seemed to mean 12 two-and-a-half-hour sittings. In just over an hour's time, we will probably have finished the sixth sitting, and we will have been required to complete consideration of parts 1 and 2.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The seriousness of what my hon. Friend is saying lies in the fact that the Bill hangs on parts 1 and 2. The Government's programme will mean that we have discussed less than half of part 1 and less than half of part 2 when the guillotine falls today. The two most important parts of the Bill will not have been properly discussed in Committee.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I agree, but in the time available, I want to be as constructive as possible. Although I have put my name to amendment No. 292, which I stand by for reasons that I have explained, I want to help the Minister. It is just possible that in legal terminology the word ''persons'' includes businesses, although I do not know whether that is the case. If it is the case, so be it, but even then it would send the right signal to businesses, which we all want to help, to include the word ''businesses''. It would be a good gesture, even if it were found not to be legally necessary.

I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne with great interest. He is on to some good points with amendments Nos. 200 and 201. I see no reason why that provision should not be written for those people who live or have businesses in the development area under consideration. I am really trying to be helpful to the Minister and the Government. Such provision would send out the right signals concerning the importance that they—we hope—attach to public co-operation in the exercise of town and country planning laws.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to refer to sending the right signals. Amendment No. 292 may well be unnecessary. The Minister could well say that ''persons'' in law covers businesses, and I would accept that. Equally, he might say that we would add unnecessary words. However, for the purposes of this afternoon's sitting, we should probe the Government on their view of business rather than just accept that inclusion. Some important signals have to be sent for

several good reasons relating to planning. I support the amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said that it was a good idea to send the right signals to businesses. The amendment also touches on another aspect of such signals. We must send the right signals to protesters. When a business states that it wants to see whatever is suggested go ahead under the planning procedure, I am very weary indeed of hearing protestors say, ''Business would say, that wouldn't it? It wants to make a profit out of us.'' I invite the Minister to agree that it is important for us to flag up the fact that businesses need to be successful.

One purpose of a plan must be to assist businesses. Again, I fall back on arguments about Heathrow airport, terminal 5 and the forthcoming runway as an example of what concerns me. When it is suggested that a new terminal or a new runway is built, one can predict what certain people will say. There will be a furious outcry as people say, ''We don't want this here,'' for various environmental reasons. The consultation refers to people who seem to have an interest, and I will say more about that when I come to the relevant amendments.

When a business such as BAA plc, or British Airways or any other airline that uses a facility as important as Heathrow, says that it believes in the proposals of a strategic plan for the future, be it a national, local or regional issue, we should recognise that it is not only entitled to do so, but it should do so. It is crucial that we listen to business. We should stamp very firmly on those who sneer and always say, ''All they want to do is increase their profits''. I make no apologies for wanting BAA and BA to make ever more profits.

I hasten to add that I have no interests to declare. I have never owned shares in BA or BAA. I have no personal interest in the matter; I mention it only because those companies and other airlines generate about 120,000 jobs in the area. If that is not a strategic matter that should be looked after by a plan, what is?

The amendment is important because we are flagging up the fact that, far from its being somehow underhand for a business to have a say, it is crucial that it should do so. Business interest in much strategic planning is fundamental to the viability of the community and the continued prosperity or recovery from recession that the plan may be designed to achieve. Although the Minister might ultimately say that ''persons'' means businesses, I hope that he will accept, and I encourage him to agree, that businesses play a vital and legitimate role. Indeed, we should encourage them rather than suggest that they are acting against the interests of local people.

Amendment No. 200 relates to consultation. I agonised over whether to amend the Bill in such a way that it referred to people who ''live in the area or have an interest'' or whether to remove the phrase ''have an interest''. I am weary of the self-appointed few who claim to speak for everyone when they oppose projects such as Heathrow, but who almost never live in my constituency. They draw attention to themselves because of the row that they make, their misleading

claims and the nonsense that they speak. It is easy to home in on such people because they appear to have an interest—my word, they have an obsession and think of nothing else. The phraseology in the clause makes it easy to say that they should be consulted on issues such as Heathrow airport, but if the Government encourage and consult such people, the result will be mass redundancies in my constituency, which I will never allow.

That is why the amendment refers to people who ''live in the area''. We are all used to dealing with the silent majority, and we must make it clear that we want to hear from individuals rather than people who are members of something. The great self-appointed chairman—or chairperson, if that makes the Minister happier—of a protest group thinks that he has the right to see the Minister because his group represents this, that and the other even when it patently does not. We want to hear from all the ordinary people—the individuals who live in the area—but we must first get past those who claim to have an interest. Amendment No. 200 would go some way towards achieving that. Again, if the Minister accepts the point, but does not like the wording, I would be perfectly happy to hear an alternative.

Amendment No. 201 may look pedantic, but it is not. Under the Bill, those who should be consulted—whether or not they live in the area—must

''have an interest in matters relating to development in their area.''

If that stays as it is, people will have a splendid invitation to indulge in even more nimbyism than they already do. They could take the phrase ''in their area'' to mean where they live, but a plan may cover a big area. Those with an interest in the little bit where they live may support its principle and say, ''Yes, a runway is a good idea.'' However, they might add, ''But not in my area. Put it somewhere else.''

The amendment would require that when those who live in an area and who have an interest are consulted and make representations, they must focus on the whole area covered by the plan rather than just the little area in which they live. That would ensure that the consultations were about the whole area and that people did not say ''Leave my little bit out and put the project somewhere else.'' We suffer enough from nimbyism, without legislation adding to the problem.

I know that the Minister takes all our points seriously, but these have real substance. All Opposition Members support consultation, but we must involve as many people as possible and focus their minds on all the interests involved in a plan. All too often, people focus only on the environmental downside.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In the clause and the amendments, we deal for the first time with the statement of community involvement, so it might be useful if I expand on our approach. Everyone agrees that the community must be effectively involved in preparing and reviewing plans, and the hon. Member for Cotswold made precisely that point when he referred to legitimacy and ownership. I fully concur. That

engagement with the community is also crucial when the authority considers applications at the coal face—dealing with planning permission and applications, for example—so that all relevant viewpoints are taken into account. However, the level and quality of community engagement varies, to say the least, across our planning system. Some local planning authorities—this is not necessarily a partisan point—have well developed mechanisms for engaging people at all stages, from the preparation of a plan to the determination of applications. In other authorities there is far less recognition of the purpose and benefits of involving the public.

A major aim of the planning reform agenda is for local planning to be founded on the aspirations of the community and for community participation to be put higher up the agenda for local planning authorities. The SCI is a statement of the authority's policy on engaging the public in the preparation of local development documents, and in the exercise of the authority's functions under part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That relates to control over development, such as, for example, the consideration of applications for planning permission. The statement of community involvement affects both ends of the local planning spectrum, from the development and formulation of policies that go into the plans, all the way through to the development control of the planning application process at the other end.

The Secretary of State will set out in regulations minimum standards for community engagement, in respect of both the LDD preparation and, to use the shorthand, the development control functions—planned applications, and so on. Such minimum standards will apply to all local planning authorities in England, will be based on current good practice, and are not intended to create unreasonable burdens for local authorities. I would suggest that the greater the community participation at the earliest stage in the drawing up of local development documents and in various aspects of local planning, the greater the legitimacy of the subsequent decisions made on planning applications. The hon. Member for Cotswold is entirely right that we have engaged Llewellyn-Davies, which is now in the final stages of research to identify both what the benchmarks could be on good practice, and examples of good practice in cases in which the standards have been achieved. I shall ensure that that publication, a summary of it, or some form of it that is useful, is available to all hon. Members as early as is physically possible.

For obvious reasons, I cannot promise that before the end of this Committee. I have given myself the target of before Report Stage. As an ex-member of the usual channels, I would not dare stand up as a Minister and suggest what those channels had determined would happen on Report. Some of my hon. Friends think that ex-Whips have greater favour with the current Whips Office. However, I am living proof that that is not the case. I fully understand that, temporarily or otherwise, I am out of that loop. I am a Minister, not a Whip or a member of the usual

channels. The hon. Gentleman will therefore have to seek guidance elsewhere on when Report will take place. However, I shall try to ensure that a summary, or the report itself, is available to hon. Members as early as possible.

There will also be support for the benchmarks in what comes out of that publication with the revision of PPG 12 on developing plans and the ''Making Plans'' guide, which is a document from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the statement of community involvement, the local planning authority will be able to set additional standards for public engagement over and above those contained in regulations. The SCI will define those additional standards as appropriate to local circumstances, and set out the actions that the local planning authority will undertake to meet the standards that are set. That will be in addition to the statutory procedures and safeguards under part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and will continue to apply as under that Act, in respect of local development document preparation. I have no idea what the final details of the guidance will be, but I exhort local planning authorities to be a tad more generous in the notification process. There is no notification unless a pathway leads to part of the garden that backs on to a particular development site, even if that garden is just 1 yd or so from it, because the building on that site has no direct connection with the development site. We must recognise that people have a wider interest.

The SCI may also need to explain how the local planning authority intends to apply the prescribed benchmarks. The statement could also specify which bodies and authorities would encourage developers to consult in advance of submitting applications for significant development, although that must be seen in the context of other elements under the development and control dimension of the Bill. Developers will not face any sanctions if they do not comply, as local planning authorities will still consult them once an application has been made. We will discuss related issues later. However, we will encourage developers to undertake such consultation on the basis that it will improve the quality of planning applications and may smooth the path to planning permission.

As I said, we envisage that each authority's SCI will set out arrangements and standards to be achieved in involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of all parts of the local development framework, and that they will offer simple and clear guidelines that will enable the community to know, and have confidence in, when and how the planning authority will consult it about planning applications.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have discussed many times the powers of the Secretary of State and the RPB, who will dictate the development schemes and documents from the top. Will the Minister say what weight will be given to guidance from the Secretary of State and the region as opposed to the views and wishes of local people in drawing up these local development plans and documents?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In essence, the Secretary of State's guidance is about the framework and processes, not

the substance and detail, which is the development and control dimension. Under the local development scheme, the substance and detail will be left to the local planning authority, with all its appropriate local development documents, or will be approved by the Secretary of State—through the mystical board that we will discuss later. The final decision and appeals process is left to the local planning authority, as at present. I advise hon. Members not to get lost in lending different weight to different aspects of the overall planning, development and control framework. Different elements have different weights at different parts of the process, whether at the planning stage or at the tail end of the development and control stage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is a critical point. House-building targets are part of an important national policy. If local people make it clear that the target that the RPB has handed down to them is excessive, what opportunity will they and the SCI have to express that belief and for it to be included in local plans?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The short answer is none. The statement of community involvement will not be about reflecting the views of the local planning authority or local people on particular policies in the RSS. I made it clear that the statement of community involvement will be about how communities will be involved in the formulation and gestation of the local development documents at one end to the local planning framework at the other. There is clearly a role for local people and local bodies such as local planning authorities during the formulation period of the regional spatial strategy, but for obvious reasons that I will not repeat—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to do so—we determined that it would not be appropriate to have a statement of community involvement at RSS level given its spatial and regional concept.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Can the Minister confirm, to be helpful to the Committee, that the SCI is all about process and not about policy?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is clearly about the process by which the community, which I shall define in a moment, has an input into the development of planning documents in the local development framework and the decision-making process of the local planning authority. It is therefore about how the community can be involved, which is why—funnily enough—it is called a statement of community involvement. It is not about a specific interpretation of local, national or regional policy by the local community, however that is defined, or by the local planning authority. It is a process and a structure through which local people can be engaged in the planning process, and bring with them their own interpretation of specific policies, whether national, regional or local.

It would, however, be wholly inappropriate for the London borough of Harrow or the London borough of Barnet, or any other borough, to say in their statement of community involvement something along the lines of, ''We have determined that we will have nothing to do with Mayor Livingstone's London plan, so if the community supports that plan, we will disregard anything that it wants to say in relation to

the gestation of local development documents or the development control process.'' That sort of specific, policy-focused element should have no part in the statement of community involvement. The SCI is a part of a process to empower and unlock people's ability to get involved and participate in both ends of the planning process.

Amendment No. 292 raises the issue of whether a local planning authority can set out its policies for involving businesses in the preparation of local development documents and in—to refer to it in shorthand—the development control and planning permission function. I assure the hon. Member for Spelthorne that the term ''person'' encompasses bodies, organisations and businesses as well as individuals. I also assure him that local authorities, in preparing their local development documents, will consult businesses along with other particular groups, as they are encouraged to do now through PPG 12. They are also encouraged to do that in ''Making Plans''—a jazzy little document about ''Good Practice in Plan Preparation and Management of the Development Plan Process.'' That document includes private businesses, local voluntary and community groups and local people among those groups that the Government expect local planning authorities to consult.

I endorse, in general terms, what the hon. Gentleman said about businesses. The notion that those engaged in business or economic activity in a particular local or regional economy have no role to play in the determination of the future in planning or in other aspects is absolute nonsense. That does not afford the business sector any more or less legitimacy than any other element of the community to voice a view or play a role in the local planning world, but it is beyond doubt that the business community and those engaged in economic activity in a particular area should have a role.

I deprecate the suggestion that there is something fishy or suspicious about those who run businesses or are engaged in economic activity becoming involved in or having concern for their local area: that area is, after all, their local economic base and their local market. The business community anywhere in the country is an important part of the wider community and should be treated as such, and in the context of SCIs, that will be the case.

Amendment No. 200 would make express provision for every SCI to cover residents of the authority's areas. As currently drafted, the clause requires the SCI to set out the authority's policies on involving

''persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to the development in their area.''

Amendment No. 201 would specify that it should cover persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in

''the area covered by the development scheme.''

I have already explained at some length how the SCI will operate and what we intend that it should specify, and I hope that I will, in your judgment, Mr. Pike,

have pre-empted a clause stand part debate. I am, however, happy to confirm that the residents of an authority's area will be covered in the regulations setting minimum standards for community engagement in consultation and participation. We also intend to encourage authorities, through guidance, to set out in their SCI what more they will do in that respect. Under clause 18(2)(a), local planning authorities will be required to have regard for the guidance when preparing their statements of community involvement. Additionally, SCIs will be subject to independent examination, which will provide for the local planning authorities' proposals to be tested. We do not think that amendment No. 200 is required. SCIs will cover the residents of the authorities' areas.

On amendment No. 201, it might help if I explain how the Bill's various provisions fit together. An authority's local development scheme will set out the local development documents that are to be prepared. Taken together, the documents must set out an authority's policies, however expressed, relating to the development and use of land in its area. The statement of community involvement will set out the authority's policies on involving the community in the preparation of its local development documents.

Those provisions mean that there is no doubt that all an authority's area will be covered by the local development documents and that an authority's entire area will be covered by the statement of community involvement. I confirm that there will be only one statutory statement of community involvement. Authorities might wish to set out different policies for different local development documents. They will be underpinned by the minimum standards required by regulation in the SCI.

Amendment No. 231 would give the Secretary of State the express power to issue guidance to local planning authorities on the nature and extent of the community involvement to be provided in a statement of community involvement. As I said, regulations will set out the minimum standards of consultation and participation that will apply to local development documents and they will build on the current arrangements that I mentioned. We have commissioned research from Llewelyn-Davies, which is in the final stage of its research to identify the possible minimum standards and examples of those standards being achieved through real-life good practice. We are well down the line of establishing the regulations, which means that amendment No. 231 is not necessary. For the reasons that I suggested, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister because he has been incredibly helpful and it is useful to have what we have been told on record.

I referred to best practice in my opening remarks, and the Minister said that that varies greatly from authority to authority when he talked about community involvement under the 1990 Act. Will the Minister undertake to disseminate best practice and to incorporate that in the guidance when the system is up

and running? That would allow us to bring the worst local authorities up toward the best.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I go quite a way with the hon. Gentleman but I would have to consider whether it would be worth incorporating that subsequently into guidance. PPG12 is explicit on how to develop plans and ''Making Plans'' is a practical guide containing best practice. I commend that document to the Committee although it is not part of the guidance. I would have to consider whether to use those two documents, perhaps by incorporation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will consider it because the issue is important.

To hark back to an earlier debate, one reason why it is appropriate that the provisions are explicit in the Bill—as are those relating to local development documents that will be part of the development plan—is that we can afford the protection of guidance and try to disseminate, and encourage, at least the minimum standard, and try to get all authorities above that benchmark, as Llewelyn-Davies will say when its report comes out.

I apologise to you and thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Pike, during our discussion of the amendments. It is the first time that statements of community involvement have been considered and given their importance , I thought it appropriate to talk now about what we are trying to do with SCIs, rather than during a clause stand part debate. I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister said that his comments ranged somewhat wider than the amendments. Have you reached a view on whether to allow a clause stand part debate? I could address issues arising from the Minister's comments now because the debate has moved wider, or I could keep them until the clause stand part debate, if you are minded to allow that.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Minister answered many points. I have listened to the debate and the clause is important, although it is relatively short and tight. I shall allow a relatively short stand part debate but I hope that hon. Members will respect that judgment because the Minister made several points clearly. I hope that that will curtail the length of the stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

In dealing with the amendments, the Minister has been incredibly helpful. As he made clear, the statement of community involvement is an important part of the planning system, and will help people to feel involved. It is understood that the Minister will produce some clear guidance on that, and there already are clear instructions on how that involvement is to be achieved in the document that he mentions. On that basis, and having explored the issue in considerable detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I have given guidance on the clause stand part debate, and I hope that hon. Members will respect it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have just one matter to discuss. It follows on from some of the points that I made in the debate on the amendments, but I was deliberately trying to confine myself to the amendments only.

As you rightly said, Mr. Pike, this is an extremely important part of the Bill. Everyone in Committee—indeed, the House—would say that the more we involved the community in the process, the better, and the more likely it will be that the community will feel a sense of ownership of the plan produced by the experts. I welcome that, and am not speaking against the clause. However, simply saying that something will happen does not mean that it will. The Minister has said what should happen under the Bill, but have he, his Department or anyone in Government made any attempt at being proactive in helping the community to get involved?

As I mentioned earlier, if the Bill simply says that a formal system of community involvement is to take place, it will all too readily take place within the framework of what is available at the moment, rather than what we should have for the future. The list of consultees will be a list of pressure groups, almost all of which will be against things. I do not believe that that is good and serious community involvement. We had a debate earlier about parish councils, and I shall not re-open it, but has the Minister given any thought to encouraging the creation of parish councils where they do not exist?

There is provision in legislation—unless it has been repealed, and I do not think that is has—for community councils to be set up in areas such as the Minister's own. I say that because such councils would allow democratic representation in the consultation process. The huge difference between the parish council and the pressure group or residents association is that the parish council has democratic credentials. It has been elected to speak on behalf of the people. That is in contrast to the typical consultation process. I shall give an example of how that process can so readily go wrong. It refers to a small matter, but it makes the point beautifully.

In a street in my constituency there are some trees, some of which are held to be dangerous and rotten. The county council, quite rightly, addressed whether the trees should be cut down, and finally agreed to consult. It noticed that a protest group on cutting down the trees has been set up, and as a result, decided that the consultation with the public should be made not through local county councillors, although the county council will set it up, but through the pressure group. The people who turned up at the meeting to elect the officers of the pressure group were—surprise, surprise—those against cutting down the trees, and the county council has gone on to say that ''consultation'' means meeting representatives of the pressure group in the street to consider the trees.

My mailbag tells me that a number of people scattered about the place want the wretched things cut down, but a formal process of consultation that would

meet the requirements of the Bill has been undertaken, and a group of people who appear to be speaking on behalf of the community is to be consulted. That is not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will listen to this argument and see that there is a role for a proactive contribution to the improvement of the process of consultation. It works well in some cases, but it works very badly in others, and it works worst in cases where there are no organisations such as parish, community and town councils, because that means that democracy is lacking and self-appointed people participate. I hope that the Minister is giving thought to how to improve consultation.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

We always seek to be proactive, to find examples of best practice and to assist in aid where that is necessary: that is the case not only in the context of this Bill, but more broadly. Getting Llewelyn-Davies to go out and find best practice where it exists is a part of that process, as is coming up with documents such as ''Making Plans''. That paper goes above and beyond guidance or anything that we need to do, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 62 which refers to some excellent participation events for the development of the Cotswold local plan, which I am sure that I will be able to commend to the Committee.

In clause 80, we seek the leave of the House to get to a stage where we can get grants for advice and assistance to other bodies, such as Planning Aid, that will do what is formally set out in the Bill. Over the coming couple of weeks, we will determine how we resource such bodies; that will happen when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement on the communities plan.

I am mindful of what you said earlier, Mr. Pike, so I will say no more.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Preparation of local development documents

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in

clause 18, page 10, line 29, after 'to', insert 'all material considerations including'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 288, in

clause 18, page 10, line 29, at end insert—

'( ) the economic development plan which has been adopted by the authority and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region in which the area of the authority is situated.'.

No. 203, in

clause 18, page 10, line 43, after first 'the', insert 'local and national'.

No. 293, in

clause 18, page 10, line 44, at end insert—

'(ia) the waste and minerals strategy prepared by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(ib) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

(ic) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(id) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority;

(ie) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;'.

No. 125, in

clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

'(k) minerals and waste development documents adopted by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.

(l) other relevant documents adopted by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.

No. 216, in

clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

'(k) a strategy relating to flooding'.

No. 291, in

clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

'( ) the minerals and waste development scheme for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Member for Ludlow is absent, but I am sure that he would not mind my moving his amendment No. 232.

Clause 18 contains a long but incomplete list of what must be considered in drawing up local development documents. I have some sympathy with the amendment, because the Bill requires the local planning authority to have regard to paragraphs (a) to (j), which implies—although I am sure that this is not the explicit power—that that is all that they need consider. Many other things must be considered, some of which are incorporated in our large group of amendments, others of which are not—and amendment No. 232 alludes to the fact that many other matters will need to be taken into consideration.

I turn to my party's amendments—those from amendment No 288 onwards. They were suggested to us by the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations. Their purpose is to ensure that local authorities have proper regard to economic considerations when preparing a local development document. The CBI told us that they accept that hard decisions about economic, social and environmental priorities for land use will often have to be made in the interests of sustainable development. The planning system has the role of balancing those often competing demands. However, clause 18 lacks a meaningful economic dimension, even though the link between planning and economic development is crucial—we touched on that in our discussion of the previous clause.

The promotion and improvement of the economic well being of their area should be an important—I would say vital—focus for local communities. As has been said, the generation of wealth by businesses in a local area keeps the vibrancy and general sustainability of that area; otherwise it will start to run downhill. For that reason, a better understanding of the local and regional economic contexts and priorities will underpin an improved guidance system and will help

to ensure that there is not a growing bias in the system against development. We also seek an assurance on other key strategies, such as those regarding local and regional transport. We have not discussed transport strategies, but it is important, in the context of the clause and the Bill in general, to understand how local transport plans will link with the other plans and documents. In particular, we should understand how those would be integrated to inform the planning process effectively.

I move on to deal with some specific matters, especially amendment No. 203, which deals with paragraph (i). Were it amended, paragraph (i) would read:

''the local and national resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document''.

I had a long discussion yesterday with the Quarry Products Association, which has some reservations about the Bill. Much of the minerals planning in this country is currently dealt with by county councils and the association feels that there is much inconsistency between authorities. For example, when planning applications for minerals are granted in Essex, a section 106 agreement often contains about 20 specific reservations, whereas in Leicestershire such an agreement contains up to 60 reservations. However, the two authorities are basically doing exactly the same thing. Clearly, some authorities can do minerals planning in a much more direct and simple way than others. We should be doing minerals and waste planning on a larger basis, rather than leaving it to individual local authorities. On drawing up local plans, the Minister must tell the Committee how he would consult the individual county councils and individual unitary authorities that would still be responsible for drawing up minerals and waste strategies and how that could be done more consistently at national level.

Amendments Nos. 293 and 125 deal with minerals and waste. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggested the wording of the amendments and it has said that they are intended to ensure that local development documents are prepared with explicit regard to the relevant mineral and waste strategy. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands that says how the minerals and waste strategy should be considered by a local authority in drawing up its development documents. The RICS has said that such strategies are of both strategic and practical importance in respect of local planning issues and that they should be clearly and unambiguously set out in the list of matters for consideration in the clause.

The RICS told us:

''In order to maintain coherence between county-prepared waste and mineral plans and locally-prepared development documents, authorities should have regard to each other's plans when preparing such documents.''

I would have thought that that was a matter of common sense. I would, however, like the Minister to say, for the record, whether that will be the case; otherwise, it could result in a lack of effective co-ordination and create a potential conflict. For example, the situation may arise in which a minerals

plan may contain land allocated for aggregates, while the local authority may, in a local development document, allocate the same land to housing. In order to avoid such confusion, it would be helpful to clarify the position. Since the waste and minerals functions would remain with the counties, it is important to integrate those properly with the broader proposals in the Bill.

On amendment No. 125, and on a point regarding the minerals strategy brought to us by the CPRE, how will the minimisation of the use of aggregates be considered in the plan? It is an important point. A large amount of ex-building material could be refurbished and reused instead of the enormous amount of aggregates that we currently mine and use. Materials such as road planings can be used in place of aggregates. Local authorities have a duty to consider this when drawing up their strategies, and they have a duty to ensure that when applicants submit their detailed drawings the specification is not over-specified, because it is far easier to use raw new aggregate than recycled aggregate, but in many cases recycled aggregate can do just as good a job as raw aggregate from the ground—and, in many cases, the sea bed.

The Local Government Association also had an input into amendment No. 125. It tells us:

''The proposals to integrate land use plans and community strategies envisage land use plans becoming spatial development strategies for their areas. These spatial development strategies will be the key to the implementation of community strategies, environmental strategies and the policies, programmes and investment of all organisations in an area. These will include transport, education, housing, health, employment and major investment strategies.

Minerals and waste development document are going to be statutory documents prepared by county councils. Local planning authorities need to have regard to them in the preparation of LDDs''.

Amendment No. 216 concerns flooding. We have discussed flooding on previous clauses, but it is particularly pertinent at this time of year. Houses in my constituency have been flooded not only with water but with raw sewage. Having visited a house flooded with raw sewage, I can say that it is a nasty experience. To continue to build houses within the flood plain where there are inadequate arrangements to deal with foul effluent is absolute folly. It must be a critical part of drawing up the plan to identify the location of the flood plains and the effect on existing developments of building on flood plains. We all know that the footings of a large number of houses containing concrete can force water out of one area into another. If an existing housing estate lower than the new housing estate is standing on the other area, it is likely to be flooded as a result of the new development.

That does not make sense, but it happens far too often in this country. Too many houses are flooded each year. We will have to pay more and more attention to that when drawing up such plans. The Environment Agency plans are a one-in-a-100-year event. With climate change we will have to look at planning for shorter periods. In other words, we may have to over-specify in dealing with developments in

and around flood plains to ensure that new developments do not cause additional problems.

I am sure that other members of the Committee will have examples from their constituencies of planning problems. I am sorry to get earthy, Mr. Pike, but I must discuss the sewerage infrastructure in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned Lechlade, whose surrounding area is at the source of the Thames. It is a low-lying area. When the Thames comes up in the winter, the sewer in the low-lying areas—of which there are several—is simply unable to discharge and backs up. It has backed up as far as Cirencester. I am glad to say that Thames Water has taken measures to alleviate the problem, although it has not yet entirely cracked it for Cirencester and the villages in that low-lying area.

Clearly, in drawing up its local plan, Cotswold district council would have to pay very careful attention to any new development in such areas. Indeed, I have gently asked it to resist any new development in those villages until the sewerage problem has been solved. It seems absolute folly to approve new developments if existing problems have not been solved.

I have dealt with some of the items that could be included on what would be a huge list, and I am sure that my colleagues will add others. The plan is all-encompassing. It tells local authorities how they are to consider not only the spatial and land use environment but the economic and social environment. Several items must be contained in the local plans. It is a difficult process—that is why it takes so long—and the more we put on the list, the longer it will take. However, if items such as flooding need to be on the list, they should be there. It will be very interesting to hear from the Minister what he expects local authorities to consider in drawing up their plans.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend, who clearly is an expert on the problems of sewerage and the Severn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Thames.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The Thames, then. He has shown us today that there are brains in the drains.

The Minister will recall that earlier today we had a little spat on amendment No. 88. I tried to point out that there were precedents in the Bill for putting additional requirements on the local planning authority, the Secretary of State or whoever it may be. That has come up on some of the amendments that we have already discussed and will come up on others still to come. I do not wish to rehearse the argument on clause 15, apart from saying that we wanted to add to subsection (1) paragraphs that would pinpoint four considerations that should be included in the scheme for minerals and waste development.

We are now debating clause 18(2):

''In preparing a local development document the local planning authority must have regard to''—

and the Bill lists 10 specific items. I shall leave it at that—it rather proves my point—and go on to speak

very briefly about the Conservative amendments. Our amendments are linked to amendment No. 232, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I comment with some hesitation on his purpose, because for very understandable reasons he cannot intervene or comment. However, it is unnecessary to add to subsection (2) that the local authority must have regard to ''all material considerations''. I made the point before that we must cut down the verbiage in the Bill as much as we reasonably can. Therefore, I would not accept amendment No. 232.

The Bill lists 10 specific items. The Minister may say, with some effect, that we are trying to create a Christmas tree Bill by proposing in amendments Nos. 293, 125, 216 and 291 to add nine other specific categories. I hope that I have made the point—the amendments are important. I also very much support amendment No. 288. It is right to mention specifically the need for an economic development plan. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the importance of including amendment No. 216. The issue is not only topical but important. My constituency is blessed with many things, if not its Member of Parliament, but it is generally on a hill. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and the Committee that flood problems can arise on hills. He mentioned the backing up of sewerage systems or rainwater gully systems, which can come right down the hill. I have terrible flooding problems in certain areas of Chipping Barnet caused by water coming down the hills, not inadequate drainage or flash floods. In recognising the importance of flooding and the need for a strategy to deal with it, the Committee should accept that it does not affect only the flood plains near rivers or in some coastal areas.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sure that my hon. Friend with his specific knowledge is aware that the Ordnance Survey is drawing up plans to try to identify better boundaries of flood plains. Would he join me in urging the Minister to speed up the production of those plans so that they are available when local authorities are considering precisely that point?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

Yes, certainly. I always like to walk through a door that is opened in front of me. In return, I would ask my hon. Friend to support my contention that these matters affect not only the flood plain but other areas of the country. I hope that the Minister will give a fair wind to our amendments.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Because of the hour, I will confine myself to comments on two of the amendments. The Minister may be tempted to think that amendment No. 203 is somewhat pedantic and that the matter is self-evident, but it is important at least to have the opportunity to press him on whether the Government have given any thought to making long-term statements about how they propose to fund the regions, whether artificial or not. It is all very well to ask the artificial region in the south-east to produce a strategic plan to make suggestions to draw up schemes for doing this, that and the other, but as he will know only too well, the Government are hell-bent on removing money from the south-east.

Year on year, it gets worse and worse. We have no idea from one year to the next how much money will be available and what resources there will be in the south-east. We do not even know whether the Government have any intention of addressing the appalling situation in the south-east where, because of national pay scales, people can earn exactly the same for doing the same sort of job in Yorkshire or in the south-east, yet houses in Yorkshire cost less than half as much as houses in the south-east. There is no point in going through the exercise of drawing up plans if the Government will not make a long-term commitment about the national resources that will be made available and what they intend to do to address some of those difficulties.

On amendment No. 216, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made some pertinent points about new developments. It is important to make it clear that we want a strategy on flooding, not an ad hoc approach to problems. Maidenhead, Eton and Windsor had problems. Something was done about that. All the water that would have flooded Maidenhead in the past few weeks was neatly taken round the outside through the Jubilee river project. There is a well-held suspicion, which may be proved correct, that the water moved on from Maidenhead has simply been dumped in my constituency and those of my neighbouring colleagues. That is not a strategy. It is solving problems on an ad hoc basis and causing other problems. I have already rehearsed the argument about how flooding strategies often need to go beyond the artificial regions. I mentioned Lechlade and made the point that any strategy for the Thames must go well beyond the south-east. We have debated that, so I will just plead that the justification for providing for a flooding strategy needs to be exactly that. A flooding strategy involves more than solving a problem without thinking about what will be created further along the river.

Strategies must be multi-agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, it is all very well to solve the flooding problem. Along the Thames, the response has been to say, ''There's a lot of river water, what are we going to do about it?'', and I have made the case for a strategy that deals with the flooding, but we also have to consider what happens if we move that flood water around and dump it somewhere else that may not be on a suitable flood plain. In my constituency, for example, the result of having flooding in new places is that extra pressure is put on the sewerage pumps and sewage then backs up. Whole estates in my constituency have been awash with awful raw sewage, and there is now the problem of clearing it out of people's gardens and houses. That is because there was not a multi-agency approach to planning for potential flooding. The Environment Agency, bless it, has done a great deal, and I am grateful to it, but it does not seem to have liaised with Thames Water about what would happen to the sewage after the river flooding was solved.

I could pursue those points, and more issues need ventilating, but I am conscious of the time. I have indicated to the Minister the general area of my argument and what we are seeking to achieve. I have

pointed out why I believe that it is important to include a flooding strategy, why that strategy must be comprehensive rather than an ad hoc set of solutions, and how it must be multi-agency so that solving one problem does not create a different one. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

All the matters that have been raised are serious and need to be dealt with, although many of them should perhaps not be deal with in a Bill that looks to the future planning system of this country.

If the hon. Member for Ludlow were here, I would say in the nicest way possible that amendment No. 232 is just plain daft. It is clear in the current planning system and any subsequent planning system or legal framework what ''material consideration'' means, which is anything deemed material to a specific planning application or document. It is deliberately set out to be a sweep-up phrase under law, and to put that into the context of the preparation of local development documents would be plainly daft and—I will try to put this gently—the proposal is either a representation of a misinterpretation of what ''material consideration'' means in the lexicon of planning or an attempt to make the clause entirely unworkable. Given the hon. Gentleman's erudition, intellectual capacity and generous and overwhelmingly constructive spirit when he is with us, I am sure that the amendment is daft rather than malign or destructive. I will say that when he is present as well, but his amendment does not bear any discussion beyond that. It is not well thought out.

I fully accept that the other amendments touch on serious points that matter to all our constituencies, but I assure Opposition Members that they are covered in the 10 items listed in clause 18. The notion of economic development and the RSS is more than covered, with regard needing to be given to the RSS and successive documents. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cotswold was not present this morning, as he would have heard an interesting and lengthy debate about minerals and waste. They, too, will have to be taken account of in the context of the local development document. There is no need to add other matters.

I am a little perplexed by amendment No. 293, which would repeat many of the elements already included, or perhaps it merely seeks to renumber them. I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about a flooding strategy and flash flooding. The good fortune for the hon. Gentleman is that when the Environment Agency finishes its work in the Silk stream to prevent flooding in Hendon—the constituency between his and mine—that part of Harrow and Barnet might be drier and less susceptible to flooding. It is not appropriate to suggest that it is all about building houses in the wrong place. The Silk stream and the River Pinn, further to the west in Harrow, have had flooding problems that go back well beyond the last century and the century before that.

The Environment Agency is not only doing a good job in carrying out flood alleviation works but it actually listens to local people and if they do not like what is going to be built it does not go ahead.

However, a Bill that will renew the planning system is not the appropriate place for a detailed operational review of flooding strategy: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are the appropriate agencies in that respect. The Bill is relevant within the context of precautionary guidance on subsequent new developments under planning and development control law. As I said, those precautions are set out in PPG 25, which needs to be taken fully into account in the preparation of local development documents.

Yes, flooding is important and it must be taken into account in precautionary planning, especially in the context of new developments. I broadly accept that there will be significant housing growth in London and the south-east, which will need to be carefully planned, not least because there have been floods in places where there ain't been floods for a considerable time. In Northampton and places such as Shropshire, where they are used to it, the floods came with a vengeance and were far worse than before. DEFRA and the Environment Agency are responsible for dealing with the existing problems, and we are taking a precautionary approach, with guidance to prevent further problems in the future.

I do not have time to rehearse the issue of minerals and waste, but the hon. Member for Cotswold, who missed the debate on that subject, can read the report in Hansard when it is available—I agree with him on that matter, too.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Quickly, will the Minister say how the local transport plan will interact with the local plan?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman had just about rejoined us when we dealt with the first amendment in the sitting. First, the local transport plan does not relate to all authorities, so it would not be appropriate in that respect; secondly, it is essentially a bidding document; and thirdly, the LDD has to take cognisance of the RSS, and wider local and regional transport issues have to be taken into account at both

levels. The local transport plan is not an appropriate document in this respect, as it is essentially a bidding document for a range of authorities, not all of which will be local planning authorities.

For those reasons, I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister's reply was partly helpful. The catch-all paragraph (j)—

''such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes''—

will doubtless help him out of holes and muddles—

It being Five 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.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Question put, That clauses 18 to 36 stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

May I inform the Committee that because of an error in column 18 of the Hansard for our Tuesday morning sitting, the report is being withdrawn and reprinted? The original instead of the revised timetable motion was printed in error.

Adjourned at two minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 21 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.