Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2003.

Standing Committee A

Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Before we return to new clause 49, may I raise the subject of timetabling? Although I am grateful to the Government Whip for accommodating me by agreeing to end the previous sitting slightly early—by 10 minutes—the Committee would nevertheless have had to adjourn at about half-past 6 because Committee business is always subservient to what is going on in the House. As a result, we did not have the opportunity to put in extra time on Tuesday, yet here we are, on the last day of the Committee's proceedings, timetabled to finish at 5.15 pm.

I have just quickly counted up, and we still have three new clauses to dispose of, and 89 clauses and six schedules still to debate. That is in respect of a Bill that was originally 90 clauses long, and had six schedules. We do not know how many new clauses there will be to deal with at the end of the day, but it would be an absolute outrage and an abuse of parliamentary democracy, having unprecedentedly recommitted the Bill to a Standing Committee, if this second Standing Committee still does not have time to consider vast chunks of the Bill. Those outside who watch our proceedings will be absolutely baffled by the Government's timetabling of Committees.

I warned the Government when the order to recommit the Bill to a Standing Committee was made in June that eight sittings would not be enough, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said the same at least once during business questions. At our first sitting, I pleaded with the Government, saying that eight sittings was not enough. After all, if 12 sittings was not enough for the original Bill, it should have been clear that eight would not be enough for this Standing Committee to consider a Bill with a huge extra amount added to it.

I was given an undertaking by the previous Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), that we would have enough time not only to deal with the new stuff that the Government rightly wanted to include and the Bill itself, but to allow other members of the Committee to add to our debate. Indeed, they have added hugely to our debate by raising other important planning matters—even if the Government are not going to accede in respect of them, it has been most useful to have had such a debate.

I ask whether you, Mr. Pike, have been given any indication by Government business managers that they intend to come forward at any time today to suggest adjourning for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet. My hon. Friend the Member for

Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), the silent one who works through the usual channels, and I would be more than willing, as I am sure would the Liberal Democrats, to consider adjourning at any time for that purpose. We could put in a day or two extra next week—we would be perfectly flexible and willing to do that—or even remove the 5.15 pm barrier and put in a few extra hours this evening.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his case at sufficient length.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although I recognise the slightly ritualistic nature of such protestations. I remind you and the Committee that the parts of the Bill that are still to be debated were subject to extensive—indeed, intensive—debate in our earlier sittings.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise another point of order while we are dealing with the first.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Part 1 of the Bill, which was the major area of contention for the Opposition, was subject to detailed analysis during those earlier sittings. I also remind the Committee that, by agreement, we introduced the Opposition's new clauses as well as our own so that they could be properly debated. No knives whatever have been imposed in our proceedings. We have always made it absolutely clear to the Opposition that we are open to representations at any stage to add time by deliberating further into the evening and by convening on a Wednesday.

I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are perfectly content to debate the Bill until midnight tonight, if the Opposition so desire it. I remind the Committee, however, that careful analysis of the timetable shows that we have spent a mere 28 per cent. of the Committee's time on the Government's new clauses, which means that 72 per cent. has been spent discussing the Opposition's new clauses and amendments. In my view, the Opposition have had ample scope to make their recommendations, although we are open, through the usual channels, to accommodating any negotiations that might occur this morning.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I appreciate that the first part of the Bill might have been considered in detail in the previous Committee, but the remaining parts have not. I accept that new clauses tabled by Opposition Members have been debated, but a huge number of amendments have been tabled to other parts of the Bill, so I am especially pleased to hear the Minister accept that we might go on until midnight. If that is a genuine offer, it would be wise for us to consider adjourning so that the Programming Sub-Committee may meet.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Members on this side of the Committee have made their point powerfully. I refute what the Minister

says. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) pointed out, parts 1 and 2 may have been discussed at some length in the previous Committee, but vast chunks of this Bill were not. We have not yet discussed very important matters such as simplified planning zones, major infrastructure projects, statements of development principles, the duration of consents or twin-tracking, all of which are greatly exercising practitioners. Those practitioners will be completely baffled if the Committee does not discuss those issues.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am happy to accept that the Programming Sub-Committee should sit now, and I will happily participate if the Committee wants to go on until midnight. A much better way of conducting our business would be for the Programming Sub-Committee to sit and to add an extra day to our proceedings whenever convenient, which could be as early as next week.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

There are several points of order, to which I will respond with care. I was Chairman of the original Committee and I am well aware of all the points that have been made. The Modernisation Committee has been considering how programming has been working, and has examined those Committees where it has worked well and those where it might be judged not to have worked well. I shall not pass comment on the category into which this Committee might fall. As Chairman of the original Committee, I was able to bring the Programming Sub-Committee up to date at yesterday's meeting.

The Modernisation Committee's report will, I hope, be finalised next week and will be debated before the Sessional Orders are debated, which will probably be in the first week of November, before the next Session. I hope that that helps Members on the general issue of programming. The House will express its view on that report, which may not conform with what the Committee agrees or with what the Leader of the House proposes for Sessional Orders.

On the question that I was asked at the start of today's sitting, I have been told that there will be a move to hold a sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee at some point this morning, but that it will be about the order of proceedings, which could change in the interim. I do not know what sensible discussion outside this Room might come up with. If the Government Whip comes to me with a proposal regarding a sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee, I will accept such a motion. However, it will be more appropriate to discuss that when we reach that stage, rather than continuing hypothetically. I do not know yet what will be put to me. Does that help the Committee?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Thank you, Mr. Pike, for that helpful explanation. I am grateful, and I am sorry that we had to spend a little time on that matter. However, it is important.

New clause 49 - Local development plan

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

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

Amendment No. 149, in

clause 14, page 8, line 35, after 'appropriate', insert

'within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme.'.

Clause 14 stand part.

Amendment No. 285, in

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

Amendment No. 286, in

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

Amendment No. 152, in

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

'(aa) a strategic planning statement;

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

Government amendment No. 80.

Amendment No. 150, in

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

Amendment No. 151, in

clause 16, page 10, line 9, after 'document', insert 'or'.

Clause 16 stand part.

Amendment No. 154, in

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

Government amendment No. 83.

Clause 18 stand part.

Amendment No. 155, in

clause 19, page 11, line 22, at end insert

'who will decide whether the examination should be in the form of a public inquiry examination or hearing.'

Amendment No. 156, in

clause 19, page 11, line 28, at end insert 'in all material respects.'

Clause 19 stand part.

Government amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 157, in

clause 20, page 12, line 3, after first 'a', insert

'local development document other than a.'

Government amendment No. 84.

Amendment No. 158, in

clause 20, page 12, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

'(d) The document may be taken into account for the purposes of developmental control by the authority until the Secretary of State has approved, modified or rejected the document or part (if the direction relates to only part of a document).'

Clauses 20, 21 and 25 stand part.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

When the Committee was usefully adjourned by the Government Whip, we were discussing new clause 49 and with it a large group of Government and Opposition amendments as well as a number of instances of clause stand part. We have not had any of those clause stand part debates, so it might be helpful if I quickly run over those clauses.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but because discussions may go on outside, it might be helpful if I make one point absolutely clear. The out date cannot be changed, because the House has agreed to it. I mention that because I know that people are withdrawing for discussion outside and it would be wrong for me not to make it absolutely clear. I cannot accept a motion that changes that date.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Further to that, Mr. Pike, does that mean that whatever happens in the Programming Sub-Committee today, we cannot alter the out time of 5.15 this afternoon?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

We can alter the time, but the date is fixed by the House and it is has appeared on the Order Paper. I want to make that clear, because it would be misleading if Members thought that they could change it. If we had looked at the matter earlier, we might have been able to make a change, as we could have tabled a motion to be discussed on the Floor of the House. We cannot do that now because we are in Committee and there is no way that we could get the House to change the motion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. I take it that we would be in order if the Programming Sub-Committee decided that the Committee could run to

midnight, but that at one minute past midnight we would be out of order.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Yes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I proceed to debate clause stand part, which we have not discussed?

First, I want to discuss clause 14 stand part. I tell the Government gently that clause 14(4), as I suggest in my new clause, should include some form of conciliation. It is better if the Secretary of State can negotiate with local planning authorities as to what should be in their plans, prior to issuing the sledgehammer of direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made that point in his succinct summing up, immediately after a complicated debate. Conciliation is a better procedure than direction. Regarding clause 14(2)(f) and (g), it seems to me that the Secretary of State has more than adequate powers to deal with clause 14(8). There may be a bit of repetition.

Clause 16 is fairly superfluous, and could well have been incorporated into clause 14 with great usefulness. The benefit of the new clause, as has been recognised, is that it is consolidating. It has been recognised through the Committee that the shorter and more concise we can keep legislation, the easier it is for those who have to put it into operation. I have considerable sympathy for those poor people who will have to enact the provisions of this highly complicated Bill. I shall come back to that.

Clause 16 is repetitive. Clause 18 is sensible, and I have largely covered it in my new clause. I should like to ask the Minister for clarification of clause 19 on independent examination. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh asked the Minister after the last sitting—therefore, it does not appear in the record—whether, in an independent examination, all local development plan documents would be examined. I think that the Minister said that they would, but I should like to have that clarified on the record. I should also like to know why the local development scheme and the local development documents are not subject to independent examination. They are the policies that instruct the local development plan documents in that hierarchy, which my hon. Friend so eloquently summed up at the end of the last sitting.

Clause 20 is about intervention by the Secretary of State in local development control. It gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited power over the local planning process. Bearing in mind also the regional planning process, if planning is controlled to that degree from Whitehall, what is the point of having a local plan process? I should have thought that the Government would have learned by now. When the Government came to power, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as Secretary of State for Health, spent two years concentrating the running of the health service in Whitehall. The Government have been trying ever since to unravel what he did. If that happened in the

health service, why are we repeating the mistake in the planning process?

Local democracy should work. Local councillors are elected because they know their own locality better than anybody else. The lower down the scale, the better people know what is wanted in their areas. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) shakes his head, but it is true, unless his area is remarkably different from every other area of the United Kingdom, that local people have strong views on what should happen in their areas. They might not participate in the plan-making process, but when a controversial planning application comes up in an area, local people will be out on the street demonstrating.

I put down a strong marker from the Opposition that the Bill is a hugely centralising measure, which will put power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I am not sure that that is wise. Clause 21, on the withdrawal of local development documents, could have been usefully consolidated in another clause. I draw the Committee's attention to a quirk in clause 25, on the revision of local development documents, that I should have addressed in my new clause and did not. Subsections (4) and (5) concern enterprise zones. Perhaps we can tease out from the Minister how they interrelate. Subsection (4) says:

''Subsection (5) applies if any part of the area of the local planning authority is an area to which an enterprise zone scheme relates.''

The important bit of that is ''any part'' of the area. Subsection (5) goes on:

''As soon as practicable after the occurrence of a relevant event . . . the authority must review every local development document in the light of the enterprise zone scheme . . . if they think that any modifications of the document are required in consequence of the scheme they must prepare a revised document''.

That means that if an enterprise zone is proposed in any part of a local authority's area, all the local plan documents have to be revised. I am not sure that that is sensible. There might be an enterprise zone in one part of a local planning authority's area that has no effect whatever on the rest of the area, yet all the documents have to be revised. Will the Minister look at the two subsections and see whether they are drafted as they should be, or whether I have misunderstood?

I move on to my new clause 49 and some of the amendments. When the Minister told me earlier in the proceedings that he took my new clause very, very seriously—I hope that I remember his words correctly—I had, against all possible dreams, hoped that he was thinking of accepting some of it. I was quite unrealistic in that expectation. Furthermore, I had not anticipated him adopting some of the more draconian methods of dealing with the problem or reading out a huge brief prepared by his civil servants that was obviously written before I explained my new clause. Therefore, he did not take into account any of the remarks that I made.

I also did not anticipate that the Minister would misrepresent the new clause—I do not say deliberately—and therefore start off on the wrong premise and come to the wrong conclusion. The main

way he has done that is in assuming that the new clause refers to one development plan. It does not—it clearly states that there will be local development plan documents.

I accept a lot of what the Minister said in his long speech about the deficiencies in the existing system, such as the inflexibility as well as the time and difficulty in getting a revision due to the need to revise the whole plan. We feel that the existing system with amendments could have been made to work and that tearing it up and replacing it with a highly complicated new system will make a paradise for lawyers. We will see judicial reviews and all manner of case law created as a result of the Bill, which will add to the delay that it will bring.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Bill will create not only a paradise for lawyers, but a nightmare for planning authorities, particularly those trying to introduce the local development frameworks in the first phase, because they have recently heard from the Deputy Prime Minister that work done before the Bill receives Royal Assent will have to be done again? Many have already embarked on such work.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend, as so often in the Committee, raises a good point. In our last sitting, the Minister said that he hoped that all local planning authorities would have their development schemes in place by the end of 2004 and that all the documents had to be in place by 2007, which is totally unrealistic. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend, sotto voce, says that that cannot be done. He has considerable experience of the planning system through his work as councillor, as have I, working as a chartered surveyor over a number of years. I can tell everybody who is not used to such work that the new system is highly complicated and, as he says, it will be difficult for planning officers to bring it in quickly.

The Minister took the wrong slant not only on the plans, but on a number of issues in my new clause, and then came up with the wrong conclusions—considering that he had all the time in the world to study my new clause, I find that mildly irritating. Therefore, I do not think that a lot of his criticism stands the test of scrutiny.

I accept absolutely, however, what the Minister said about the existing system being inadequate, in that it is too slow and that 31 authorities do not have a plan in place. The Committee will not be surprised to learn that a number of practitioners and large developers who use the planning system have been through my offices in the last few weeks. The one thing they all say is, ''For goodness' sake, we hope that this new system is going to be quicker and clearer, but we don't think it is.'' The test of time will prove that, but we need to ensure that the system will operate.

I say in a non-partisan way that I hope the Minister takes every step to ensure that all guidance is given to local planning authorities and everyone else on exactly how the scheme is going to operate. I hope that there will be a large number of articles in the technical magazines and plenty of Government publicity on the website. I hope that planning officers and everyone else

will have more than adequate information at the earliest possible stage, so that they can begin to prepare to implement this very complicated scheme.

I do not accept that my new clause is inflexible. There are plenty of opportunities for flexibility, and even if the new clause does not say that it would be perfectly simple to amend it to make it more flexible. I give the Minister notice that I shall encourage my colleagues in another place to table a similar new clause including the added flexibility that he criticises this one for not having. Such a consolidated new clause would be a useful alternative basis for the Government to consider.

A consolidation involving doing exactly what the Government want to do, but in a simpler way, would be hugely beneficial to the practitioners, planning officers, consumers—the 500,000 people who make planning applications every year—and those who wish to make objections. The simpler the system, the easier it is for those people to use. They should find the system user friendly. If it becomes too complicated, they will be alienated from the planning system and feel that it is working against them. That will further weaken local democracy and further lower turnout in local elections.

I turn to some other criticisms. I have broadly covered the Minister's objections involving the first, second and third disadvantages that he gave. In respect of the third, at column 283, he said:

''A local planning authority will be able to produce just a single integrated development plan document or a series of documents, depending on local circumstances.''

Considering the complexity of the system, we found in the Minister's answer a useful and clear explanation of the Government's intention. Even in his explanation, however, all sorts of new terms turned up that we had never heard of before. He referred in column 282 to a ''proposals map'' and in column 283 to an ''integrated development plan''. Let alone all the different terms in the Bill, we now seem to be getting new Government terms by the minute. I just do not know how we are supposed to operate a system when we keep getting new Government terms.

The Minister went on to a fourth disadvantage. I thought that he was pretty churlish at this point. I do not want to introduce a bad note, but he said:

''A fourth disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's new clause is that it would do less to help a community's businesses and other interested parties participate in planning.''

That is simply not true. My new clause makes it very clear that a local authority must have regard to the statement of community involvement and specifies how that is to be drawn up. He misrepresented what I had to say there. There is no question of local people being unable to participate in the planning process under my proposals. That is unfair.

The Minister then said, at column 284:

''It is not sensible to include the project timetable in the plan. That would mix up policies and the programme for preparing them. That is not necessary and it is not compatible with the plan-led system''.

However, the only problem is that the Government do exactly that in clause 14(2)(f). That says that there

must be a timetable, and of course there must. Again, I question what he said.

The Minister continued:

''Under our arrangements, the project plan for preparing the local development documents that make up the local development framework and for keeping the local development framework up to date is rightly kept separate, and altered in a way that is sensible.''

That is exactly what my arrangements do, so I do not know quite what he was getting at there. He then said:

''However, I put it to the Committee that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. How can the plan properly take account of community views if the inspector does not consider written representations''?

There is a difference when it comes to how I have drawn up my new clause and the Government view. If the inspector has to consider every oral representation, some groups of objectors will use that to create an abuse. There needs to be a safeguard. Of course, the inspector may—and should—wish to hear every oral representation. However, when some form of written statement has been received, there must be a lock-out if an abuse takes place at an independent inspector's hearing. My new clause usefully deals with that.

In column 285, the Minister makes perhaps the biggest mis-statement in his whole explanation:

''It is simply not true to say that our system is complicated''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 October 2003; c. 282–85.]

Time will tell whether that is true. I just point out that e = mcŽ2? is not a complicated formula until one starts to examine the detail. For those who do not know, e = mcŽ2? is Einstein's formula for the theory of relativity—it is on the clock tower on the M4, which takes people out of London. It is one of the most complicated formulae in the business, yet it consists of only three digits.

Virtually every practitioner I have come across admits that the Government's system is highly complicated. That might not matter provided that it works and gives a simpler, fairer and more transparent planning system, and that the 500,000 consumers who use it every year find that that is so. My great fear is that that will not be the case. We shall return to the subject on Report and it will be discussed again in another place. I have no doubt that their lordships will have a great deal to say about the Bill. A consolidating new clause, set out in the way that I have arranged it, represents a considerable improvement on the Government proposals that it would replace.

I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, who, in a paragraph in Hansard, neatly summed up what the Government intend to do in principle. However, that is like Einstein's theory of relativity—it is only principles and acronyms. My hon. Friend had some good acronyms for each category of document. This will be Hill's Bill—the Minister's great testimonial. He will be the one who tore up the existing planning system and replaced it wholesale with a new one. Time will tell whether that new system works, but I have a new acronym—CHAOS, which stands for ''Can Hill's Alternative Objectives Succeed?'' I submit that they will not.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Well, what a note on which to conclude. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his useful employment of his time since Tuesday afternoon. We have had a textual exegesis of my contribution on that occasion and I am sure that we all feel a great deal better for it. However, the Committee should not forget that our debate began on Tuesday afternoon. I want to respond not only to the hon. Member for Cotswold, but to the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Rayleigh. I sense that there is not an appetite in the Committee for a protracted debate. We have spent an hour on the matter so far, so I hope to make my response reasonably succinct.

The first contribution came from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I welcome the broad support that he extended to our proposals and, in particular, his support for the greater flexibility that we expect the system to bring. I am sorry that it took him nine months to understand the thrust of the new arrangements, although I am sure that that is no reflection on him. I strongly suspect that the arrangements will prove a good deal more accessible in practice—on the ground—than in their inevitably complex expression in legislative form, at least at first flush.

Let me also say, in the spirit of hands across the water, that I accept the hon. Gentleman's rebuke on the delay in publishing some draft guidance and regulations. However, we made considerable efforts to let the Committee have as much in draft as was humanly possible. We published PPS11 in part 1 regulations, PPS12 in part 2 regulations, regulations under part 4 and transitional regulations on local plans, but I accept that we can always do better. In broad terms, I am grateful to him for his comments.

I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold, who referred to a conciliation safeguard in his new clause. We certainly intend that a local planning authority should reach agreement with the Secretary of State on changes to its local development scheme and documents as an alternative to having to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State. Agreement may be reached before or after the Secretary of State has issued a direction. We, too, prefer an agreement to a direction, and we have tabled amendments to put the scope for that approach beyond doubt.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the remarks of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who also mentioned conciliation and said that new clause 49 was better on it than the Government's proposals. Other than the arguments that I have just made, let me repeat a point that is on the record, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will peruse. I firmly believe that our proposals have a better prospect than the present system of achieving consensus locally. The new system will be easy for people to engage with because they will be able to choose what to look at and they will know how their authority will involve them through its statement of community interest.

I am grateful to the to the hon. Gentleman for his response in general to my early remarks. I shall not say

that he went so far as to support the proposals, but he obviously feels that there is more in them than does the hon. Member for Cotswold, from whom we have heard adamant opposition. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that the debate was of

''great importance and seriousness. I want to say to the Minister that I have been impressed by the way he has responded, and that, although we must take the decision now, I would want to reflect further on what he has said.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 October 2003; c. 293.]

That is an encouraging response. In due course, I shall illustrate the fact that there is at least understanding—great clarity—of our proposals on the Opposition's part , if not agreement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

In the spirit of bipartisanship, which we seem to be re-achieving, I have reflected deeply for many hours, some of them post-midnight, on what the Minister said. I have no doubt that the Opposition will continue to reflect carefully on his comments and on the contents of the Bill. However, I hope that the merits of the consolidation and simplification in my new clause will be considered before the Bill goes to another place, because the simpler we can make the system, the easier it will be for those who have to operate it.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I cannot respond in a bipartisan spirit by saying that we are minded to make changes, but we constantly take the contents of our legislation under consideration. I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the hon. Member for Ludlow: in practice, the proposals will be accessible. Nobody thinks that the planning system will ever be utterly simple—that is a chimera—but through the proposal the Government are determined to achieve transparency, accessibility and great openness towards the public, who are the people who count at the end of the day. That is the purpose of our commitments on community involvement, and I am sure that there will be further opportunities today to debate it.

Let me hurry along. The hon. Member for Cotswold said that the Bill gives the Secretary of State complete control of the planning system, but the things that the Secretary of State can or will do are essentially the same as they are now. For example, his powers and duties on regional spatial strategies are modelled on his current role in the procedures for regional planning guidance, and his powers to intervene in the preparation of local development frameworks are modelled on those under current legislation. New powers for the Secretary of State are linked to the introduction of new arrangements such as local development schemes and local development orders.

On clause 25, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of enterprise zones. The clause provides for part 2 to apply to revisions to local development documents in the same way as it applies to the preparation of documents. It also requires an authority to review and, if necessary, revise local development documents as soon as possible after an enterprise zone is designated or an existing enterprise scheme is modified. That is because development documents and enterprise zone schemes cover the same area. The clause enables the efficient revision of local development documents and

ensures that such documents do not conflict with enterprise zone schemes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before the Minister skates by that point, I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but I repeat that clause 25(5) states that

''the authority must review every local development document in the light of the enterprise zone scheme''.

That is an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement when an enterprise zone might cover only part of an authority's area.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is the potential for interaction even if an enterprise zone covers only part of the area. It seems reasonable that attention should be addressed to the review and possible revision of all elements of the local development plan. Again, we can revert to those matters later.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the scheme and supplementary planning documents are not subject to independent examination. I attempted to illustrate the answer by using the Middlesbrough local plan as a visual aid.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It was prepared under the old system.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Yes, but it shows that progressive authorities are already moving in that direction—we can learn from best practice elsewhere. I used the visual aid of the Middlesbrough local plan, which is an implementation plan, but obviously to little effect. I repeat that the scheme is a project plan that may be changed frequently by, for example, adding new documents. To require examination of the scheme every time that it is amended would remove flexibility and speed, which are essential in good project planning. The document is public, however, and the community can tell the local planning authority what it thinks and what changes it wants. Supplementary planning documents are subsidiary to development plan documents. They give further detail on the policies in the development plan document rather than establishing first principles.

The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, made a plea for improving the current system, and I have covered that point at some length. My preceding remarks explained how the Bill addresses that issue, and I do not agree with him. Our predecessors—including those in Conservative Administrations—took numerous steps to try to fix the current system, but the outcomes have only underlined the point that fundamental reform is necessary.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of limiting appearances before the inspector. Frankly, I am a trifle puzzled by how he reconciles that with his support for the principle in the Green Paper, which is that all parts of the community—individuals, organisations and businesses—must be able to make their voices heard on plans. I find it hard to square that support with the proposal that the inspectorate should see only those written representations seeking to change a development plan document and not those that support the local authority's proposals, and then only if the person making the representation

specifically asks for the inspector to see it. It is also hard to square it with the proposal that people making a representation seeking a change should not have the right to appear at the examination.

If the inspector sees only those representations that disagree with the authority's proposals, how can he reach a sensible decision on whether to support them? He must see all representations. Surely, we want plans with the greatest possible community support rather than those that upset the fewest people.

The hon. Gentleman reverted to his accusation about a plethora of terms in the Bill. I take that allegation with a pinch of salt, as in an earlier contribution he complained about the sudden appearance of ''policy'' in clause 16.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

They do not have any policies.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman says that the explanation for the consternation at the appearance of ''policy'' is that the Conservative party does not have any policies. He ought to know about policies—the Liberal Democrats have plenty, but they just do not add up.

The hon. Member for Cotswold complained about the appearance of ''policy'' in clause 16, but I must point out to him the fact that it appears in clauses 1 and 37. He asked what a policy is. Clause 16(3) states that a local authority's

''local development documents must . . . set out the authority's policies (however expressed) relating to the development and use of land in their area.''

Clause 1(2) states that the regional spatial strategy sets out

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

Clause 37(5) explains what happens if two policies contained in the development plan documents and the regional spatial strategy conflict, providing for the most recent to prevail.

The hon. Gentleman also asserted that ''proposals map'' is a new term. It is not; it was in the Government's response to the Select Committee report on the Green Paper published in July 2002. I have identified the priority issues raised by him. He raised many other matters and we will carefully examine the Hansard record of them. I hope that he feels that I have dealt with his major concerns in reasonable detail.

I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, who is a new Member. In my previous incarnation as deputy Chief Whip, I was able to observe his performance as a rapidly promoted Opposition Whip. He earned my respect in that capacity and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that he has earned a little place in our hearts as well.

The hon. Gentleman distinguished himself in the previous sitting—his contribution was a positive tour de force and very reassuring—which was his introduction to the Government's new planning

proposals, of which he demonstrated a perfect understanding, with the benefit, I dare say, of my modest exposition. The last thing that I would want to suggest is that if he can understand our proposals, anyone can. On the contrary, to borrow from his talent for initials, Rayleigh rules OK. With that, I invite the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the motion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

One thing that we have learned from the Committee is that we have a different Planning Minister from the one before. His predecessor would have dismissed the new clause in a few short sentences. Whether or not we agree with what the Minister says, the Committee has benefited from his approach. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he has been incredibly courteous and he and his civil servants have devoted a great deal of time to the matter. I am sure that we shall return to it during later consideration of the Bill, so at this stage it is appropriate that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 50 - Development of a listed building or

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I offer a warm welcome to you this morning, Mr. Pike. I am pleased to be back in the Committee, and I apologise for my absence on Tuesday afternoon. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for moving two new clauses in my absence.

According to its title, new clause 50 deals with development of a listed building or structure in a conservation area. In fact, that is a polite way of saying that it deals with the destruction of listed buildings and structures in conservation areas. The new clause would enable local planning authorities to require the restoration or reconstruction of a structure

that is protected because it is in a conservation area or because it requires listed building consent. If the developer—I use that word because it is the legal term for someone who knocks down a listed building—fails to restore the building, the new clause would enable the local authority to do so.

I am sure that the Committee is aware that English Heritage maintains a list of listed buildings at risk. I accept that the problem is not only developers; sometimes local planning authorities that allow listed buildings to fall into disrepair. The regional director of the south-east region drew my attention to the fact that one of the listed buildings at risk in my constituency is Northwood house, which he describes as

''A long-standing case of partial neglect by the Isle of Wight Council . . . now partly ameliorated by repairs''.

I do not claim for a moment that local authorities are perfect in this respect, but they do have a locus to maintain their own list of listed buildings and other structures in conservation areas that are at risk. They need to be confident that they can act to have such buildings restored if damage is caused to them, either wilfully or through neglect. I shall give some examples.

The new clause is designed to test and strengthen the existing law. There is insufficient guarantee that listed buildings and structures in conservation areas—I hope the Minister will be happy if I do not keep repeating that—will be protected. Too many buildings of that sort suffer from curious accidents at a time when they lie in the way of potential development. I would like to give two examples of that drawn from my constituency. Before I started speaking, I should have declared an interest because I am an owner of a listed building, but not one of those to which I refer elsewhere in my remarks.

In the Cowes high street conservation area there is a grade 2 listed pub, the Three Crowns. Sadly, it was demolished by a bulldozer under the control of a developer who was planning to turn it into a jazz bar. I am pleased to say that the magistrates found him guilty of an offence under listed buildings legislation and imposed a fine of £25,000, which I believe is close to the maximum. I congratulate them on that. However, I regret to say that the building has not been rebuilt, and only the fa¢ade remains.

A second example concerns Merrie Gardens farm. I confess that when I heard that there was a farm called Merrie Gardens, I thought that it came out of ''The Archers'', but it is a real building, and a quite historic one. A stone and thatched mediaeval building at Lake, it was gutted by fire, and there is no sign that it is to be reconstructed. All the adjoining premises have a commercial or industrial use. It is not difficult to draw the conclusion that the fire may not have been entirely an act of God.

The new clause defines a relevant structure as

''a building or other structure which is subject to conservation area consent or a listed building''.

It defines development, and states clearly that what is meant is

''(in the judgement of the local planning authority) destruction or substantial damages''.

It states:

''The local planning authority shall, save in exceptional circumstances, require that the owner restore the relevant structure within a specified period to its state before the development took place.''

Exceptional circumstances means

''if an alternative planning application is approved within 6 months''.

The new clause would allow the local planning authority to define the specified period, which should not exceed three years. Subsection (4) would give the local planning authority the power, if the owner did not restore the building, to make arrangements to restore it at his expense.

I hope that the new clause would be a powerful tool to enable local authorities to ensure that listed buildings are neither wantonly neglected nor wantonly destroyed. It is one thing for an owner to face a fine of £25,000, but if the development value of a site significantly exceeds the likely maximum fine—in many cases it exceeds that sum by a multiple of 10—there is precious little disincentive to allow buildings to fall into disuse, neglect or destruction.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on his new clause. He has identified a pertinent point about something that is a problem in many parts of the country. However, although I agree with him on the intention, there could be problems with implementation of the provision. I can think of two. One is that some listed structures are very old indeed, and are built using construction techniques that would be difficult to replicate in a modern environment. If such a building were to be destroyed deliberately, perhaps with a bulldozer, it would be extremely difficult to restore it to what it was. As my degree is in mediaeval studies, I am concerned about the danger of ending up with a replica that does not match up to the original.

My other concern is that, in contrast to the law on cars, under which motorists must have insurance, buildings insurance is not compulsory. If, for example, an elderly couple with no insurance or insufficient insurance allowed a listed building to burn down, through neglect rather than deliberate action, the new clause would force them to rebuild it at great expense, even though they had no money to do so. Presumably, that would force them to seek mortgages, which they might not be able to obtain. I foresee see practical difficulties with that.

I am not trying to dent the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for dealing with the problem. It needs to be dealt with, perhaps by increasing the maximum fine to above £25,000. If people can make tenfold profits, then let us increase the fine tenfold and relate it to the potential redevelopment value of the site. If the potential for profit were removed, the likelihood of people doing such things would be significantly reduced, although that would not deal with the issue of buildings falling down due to neglect. This is a difficult area, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having a stab at dealing with it.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

New

clause 50 would require a local planning authority to require an owner to restore a listed building or other structure in a conservation area that has been destroyed or substantially damaged without consent. It would also allow the local planning authority to make arrangements to restore the building or structure at the owner's expense when the owner has failed to do so.

We should recognise that the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contains enforcement powers for situations in which unauthorised work has been carried out on a listed building. The local planning authority may serve an enforcement notice. Section 42 enables a local authority to undertake the work required by the notice and to recover the expenses incurred from the owner. Section 74(3) of the Act provides the same powers regarding the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas. The new clause would go further than that by imposing a duty on the local planning authority to take action, except in those circumstances defined in the clause. It would remove the local planning authority's discretion.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised some important points, but it is undesirable to try to solve such problems by removing local authorities' discretion. Local authorities have the primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the public interest. They need to tailor their approach to fit the circumstances of each case, whatever the breach of planning control might be. They are accountable to their local councillors and local communities for their decisions.

Imposing on local authorities a duty always to take restorative action could bring perverse consequences. For example, if the case had been made before the works took place, a local authority might have been prepared to consent to the demolition of a listed building or a building in a conservation area. Restoration may well be a perverse course of action in a case involving a building in a regeneration area where there are important regeneration considerations, or where a building needs to be demolished for health and safety reasons but permission was not sought in advance. In those circumstances, asking people to apply for retrospective planning permission would involve needless bureaucracy.

The hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Ludlow both spoke about fines, which I had not previously considered. I shall be happy to consider that matter. However, the new clause would not help to achieve the aims of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight because of the potential perverse effects of taking away local authorities' discretion, and of forcing them to perform restoration work that might not be desirable or advisable in the circumstances. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for drawing attention to the level of fines that may be imposed, and to the Minister for listening to his point.

On reflection, I accept the Minister's point that it may be perverse to take away local authorities' discretion through subsection (3), although I was not proposing to take away any discretion through subsection (4). Will the Minister consider permitting the courts to levy a fine that substantially outweighs any planning gain that may be obtained by the destruction of the building? I am grateful to her for agreeing to look at that, and I shall be interested to see what proposals she makes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 51 - Chief planning officer

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause concerns the employment and role of chief planning officers, which it will be useful to spend a few minutes discussing. The Town and Country Planning Association has given us a briefing, and I am grateful to it for helping us to draw up the new clause. It tells us:

''Chief Education Officers, Directors of Social Services, Chief Treasurers and Chief Solicitors (described as 'Proper' officers) all benefit from statutory recognition''.

The wording of the new clause is based on the part of the Education Act 1996 that deals with the statutory recognition of chief education officers.

We would all agree that chief planning officers need to be of the highest calibre and sensitivity to deliver the future vision of their authority and local community. The Town and Country Planning Association continues:

''Their delegated authority can also be great; for example the granting or refusing of planning permission can create or remove millions of pounds of land value at the stroke of a pen.''

Agricultural land worth a few thousand pounds an acre can often be turned into development land worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the decisions of planning officers and their recommendations to their committees can be hugely important, not only to the people developing the land but to the community and surrounding area. One big development can shape the whole future of a town or city.

The new clause would give the officer responsible for planning statutory recognition similar to that of other local authority chief officers. It would not prevent local authorities from combining the post with others, nor would it prevent them from using a variety of job titles to suit local wishes. The Town and Country Planning Association comments:

''Unless planners are given the status and ambition they need candidates of calibre will not come forward.''

That is a serious and worrying problem, given the changes that the Government are making. If I were currently a planning officer in a county council, whose strategic role was being diminished by the Bill, and I received an offer from the private sector, I would be very tempted to move, particularly as my future would be so uncertain.

That is a problem at the moment. There are not enough trained planning officers in this country. The competition from the private sector for good ones is huge. Some are paid vast sums. I was with some big developers yesterday, and some of their principal planners are paid a very great deal of money indeed.

This is not only about money, it is about statutory status: status in the council and among councillors, and status with the general public. We need to ensure that planning officers are given that status, that they are paid properly, that we have more trained planning officers, and that there is proper career progression and development. All those are lacking at present. I hope that the Minister will give the matter serious consideration. My concern is not only with chief planning officers, but with the number of planning officers in general. Most authorities are struggling even now to carry out all their planning functions. With all the additional functions that the Bill gives them, I do not see how they will be able to do that unless a large number of extra people are recruited.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I am not entirely sure whether the new clause exactly fits the Bill, but I support the important principle that planning authorities should recognise the status and role of planning officers. Substantial changes have occurred in recent years in how local authorities and planning authorities see their roles. They have removed the silos of professional status within local authorities.

A few years ago there used to be a chief planning officer, a valuer, a chief education officer, an officer with responsibility for social services, a chief legal officer and so on. Even in a district authority, there would be 13 or 14 chief officers sitting round the table with their different professional hats on. As the function of local authorities changed, those chief officers' roles were, quite rightly in my view, often subsumed in super-departments Officers in local authorities were grouped around the table as officers in charge of an area of concern rather than on the basis of their professional qualifications or backgrounds, which led to a great improvement in how they worked.

However, in that development, the sense that there were particular areas that needed a focus of concern within local authorities was lost. At the same time, local authorities changed from taking a reactive role to adopting a proactive role on many planning matters. That is particularly important because clause 38 enjoins planning authorities to concern themselves with sustainable development, which requires a proactive concern for the whole body of activity in a local authority rather than simply ticking off

particular planning applications as they come through. Indeed, the widely welcomed Government communities plan reflects the imperative for proactive planning on the part of local authorities across the country.

The movement towards more proactive planning is happening at the same time as the continuing reorganisation of arrangements for executive authorities—and, possibly, elected mayors—in local government. The role of chief officers has been further thrown into generality. Those two forces are moving in opposite directions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because his case is intelligent and cogent. Does he agree that there is consensus in Committee not only on the proactive approach, which is welcome, but on greater community involvement in the planning process? Community involvement is good, but it will inevitably take up the time of planning officers, which will put further pressure on their work loads.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The proactive planning process involves more than making various connections in the local authority planning process that may not have been made previously. Connections must also be made with a variety of stakeholders in the planning process, who are outside the authority, within the community. That was not the common sense of planning in years gone by.

Planning now plays a number of roles in local government and planning authorities, although there is also a decreased focus on that activity. That is the reason why the principle of recognising the role of chief planning officer—whether or not that person goes by that exact title—is important. As the hon. Member for Cotswold has pointed out, there is such recognition in a number of other areas, where specific posts form the statutory basis on which other officers work.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider accepting the new clause, and to take on board the notion that this recognition of status in local authorities is increasingly important, especially given the admirable changes to the planning process made by the Bill and the rolling changes that he has just explained to the Committee. If he does so, that will underline the importance of planning officers in that process and in the wider process of ensuring that planning becomes part of the fabric of local authorities, not the part of the silo, as it was for some people in years past.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I offer general support, although I am worried by the general implications of doing so. I hope that my comments will help the situation, rather than create a dogmatic position. I have great sympathy for the idea of ensuring that there is no decline in the status of planning departments. However, I am concerned about the financial effect on authorities of making it a statutory requirement to have a chief planning officer. I know, for example, that the Government are publishing a children's Green Paper, which means that there will have to be a director for children's services.

The trend is to keep telling councils that they must have one of these and one of those. The danger is that a council's ability to manage its staffing arrangements, especially at the highest paid levels, becomes very difficult. Each of the five borough and district councils in Shropshire, for example, has a different system. Some have a director of planning, while others have a head of development control who works for a director of operational services, because they have needed to group several areas together for financial reasons. My concern is that this may force some councils into having a director of planning again. A few years ago, South Shropshire had to take that step for financial reasons.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent point. Obviously, it is best to leave such decisions to local authorities—but does he believe that a local authority would be wiser to share the appointment of a director of planning with an adjoining local authority, to obtain a higher calibre of advice than it might have if it subordinated him to someone with the ghastly title of ''director of operational services''?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I have some sympathy for that idea. South Shropshire was slightly fortunate because when it abolished the post of director of planning, the director of planning applied for the lower, and lower paid, post of head of development control. He is still there, so the council still has in post a very experienced person, who did not want to move from the delights of south Shropshire—for which I do not blame him. However, it could have ended up having to recruit someone with less experience.

The solution lies almost in the other direction. If the Government were to allow us to have local government change in Shropshire so that we could get rid of the districts and boroughs and have a unitary Shropshire, for which there is cross-party support, we could get round the financial constraints. Shropshire would then have one director of planning, who would have very high status. However, I am concerned that the new clause could impose financial constraints on district councils, especially small ones, while we still have them. None the less, I broadly support its aims, because there has been a tendency to downgrade planning in some areas. One could argue that that had happened in South Shropshire.

Fortunately, the director of operational services gives a free-ranging role to the head of development control in South Shropshire, and that works well, but I can see that such an arrangement might not always work. Therefore, although I support the principle, I think that we need to look through the practicalities to see whether it is achievable, or whether other changes to local government are needed to make it achievable. Perhaps when, in the Government's utopian vision of local government, there are unitary authorities throughout the country, the financial constraints will not be there—but in the interim, it might cause some problems.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As usual, we have had a thoughtful exchange. One of the things on which I reflect during Standing Committee proceedings is the fact that one ends up with an almost intimate knowledge of the constituencies of Opposition Members, as they draw on their constituency experiences to illustrate their cases. I feel that I could walk around blindfolded in either the Isle of Wight or Ludlow, not that I would want to do that in either, since both are very beautiful localities with which I am already familiar. We have not heard as much as we might have looked forward to hearing about the Cotswolds—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Give me time.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I pay proper tribute to the hon. Member for Cotswold, who really has focused on the substance of the matters before us.

I particularly welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and his enthusiastic support for the Bill's provisions. One might say that, as a Government Member, he is duty-bound to express such support, but my hon. Friend is a great expert in these matters and he knows what he is talking about, so his wholehearted backing for our proposals is encouraging. I absolutely agree with him about the need for planners to adopt a proactive role, and I welcome the Opposition's support for that approach. The purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development, not to find elegant and, often, protracted ways of saying no, so we proceed with a degree of consensus.

I have some sympathy with the aims of the new clause, but I cannot agree to the proposal. While a strong, effective and efficient planning function is important to local businesses and local communities, we do not need to give statutory protection to chief planning officers to deal with the problems that Members have identified.

Two separate strands of thinking on the issue have emerged during the debate. First, let me explain our thoughts on the position of planning officers who find their professional advice being disregarded or questioned. Currently, only three posts are covered by the additional statutory protection under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001 made under local government legislation. They are the chief executive, the chief finance officer and the monitoring officer, whose role is to keep the council within vires and propriety guidance. Those three officers are seen as particularly vulnerable and potentially exposed to political pressures when carrying out their functions of keeping the authority on the proper and legal course.

There might be circumstances in which chief planning officers are put under pressure to make particular recommendations either on planning applications or in relation to the content of local development documents—from applicants, third parties or members of the authority—but there are already adequate safeguards against that. For example, the new national code of conduct, which tackles questions of ethics throughout local

government, gives the officer in such circumstances the opportunity to make a complaint to the Standards Board for England.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to probe what the Minister has said. It seems that the chief planning officer is more likely to be under political pressure than either the chief executive or the standards officer, because of the amount of money involved. That would be the case in a small authority such as mine in particular, where—if there were a major application from a major organisation with a very deep pocket and it decided to fight a planning refusal—the potential cost to the authority, as a percentage of budget, might be huge. Therefore, the recommendations that a chief planning officer makes could have major financial consequences, particularly for a small authority.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That seems to me to be a broad political pressure, not the personal pressures that are being identified and used to justify the new clause. The hon. Gentleman does not imply that there would be pressure of a highly personal or even pecuniary nature brought to bear by elected members of the authority.

The hon. Gentleman's example relates to broader issues in the public domain. A major development, such as he characterises, would be well known to the public and would not be susceptible to the individual pressures from which other local government regulations seek to offer protection. I do not wholly agree with his point.

Our prospectus, ''Training in Planning for Councillors'', which was issued in 1999, included the need for proper training for members on issues relating to propriety as well as the principles and policies of the planning system. Our agenda for culture change considers afresh whether anything else is needed to guide members on planning.

Planning legislation provides for circumstances in which a possibly perverse decision is being, or is about to be, made by a local planning authority. Under part 2, the Secretary of State has the power to direct modification of a local development document and to direct that a development plan document be submitted to him for his approval. He also has powers under the principal Act to call in a planning application at any time before it is determined. Similarly, he has other reserve powers of, for example, modification, revocation and discontinuance action. Finally, an applicant who has an application refused or granted subject to conditions can appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal or the imposition of the conditions.

I turn to the issue of strengthening the planning profession more generally, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to pursue the point. This may seem perverse, but I want to try one more time.

The Minister says that an applicant has a final right of appeal to an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, as enshrined in all planning legislation. That very act of appeal provides an

inherent threat to any authority that turns down an application. An authority knows that if a commercial organisation with a deep pocket appeals and loses, and costs are awarded against it, that will require a significant financial outlay. In those circumstances, a chief planning officer would come under real pressure not only from fellow officers—particularly the finance officer—but from other members of the authority.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. One is tempted to say that, rightly or wrongly, that is the way of the world and the nature of things. One is also tempted to say that the pressure he describes would not be frequently experienced. The pressure is in the public domain and is totally transparent. It seems to me that regulation seeks to protect the three officers, identified as being in statutory positions, from internal pressures.

The case suggested by the hon. Gentleman envisages the possibility of internal pressures, but they will be no more than the pressures of debate that are bound to occur in an authority contemplating a major application that, if rejected, may entail large costs. However, such debates will occur in the public domain and will undoubtedly be the subject of exchanges in full committee and council meetings. I contend that there will be a degree of transparency.

Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman comes back again.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I partially agree with the Minister. Of course, a lot of it will be in the public domain, but before the planning committee considers a controversial application, planning officers will have to make a recommendation on the development, and that will not be in the public domain. He knows that if a major application goes to appeal, the planning officer's recommendation can come under the minutest scrutiny. That is why the chief planning officer needs protection.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that inspiration has winged its way to me during our exchanges. Let me try this line: the chief planning officer is more likely to be under political pressure on the ground that an appeal to the Secretary of State can be costly. Based on advice, I can say that the costs of appealing to the Secretary of State are borne by each party, unless one of the parties has acted unreasonably. Therefore, if the actions of the planning authority are reasonable, costs are unlikely to be awarded against it.

That serious and interesting observation goes at least some way to undermining the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument on the nature of the costs. Does he wish to come back on that?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I was not going to come back, because I do not want to prolong our debate, but, as the Minister has invited me to do so, I shall.

In an ideal world, where everything is black and white, what the Minister said would be 100 per cent. true. The problem is that big commercial cases are not black and white; they are grey. That is the purpose of allowing appeals. When a planning officer makes a recommendation on a controversial application that

may or may not conform entirely to the plan, he cannot be sure on which side an inspector will come down when making his decision. That is why the officer's professionalism and judgment are absolutely on the line in controversial cases, particularly those that go to appeal. That is why chief planning officers need such protection. They undertake important and delicate decisions on behalf of the community.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am sure that that is correct. I shall come, in due course, to the influence that costs may have on such decisions.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I intervene to help the hon. Member for Cotswold. A planning officer might come under the most severe internal pressure if the local authority has put forward an application. If the plan had been dreamed up by the chief executive and senior executive councillors, the head of development control would be under pressure to write a good report—I said earlier that the matter should not involve one and the same person, as once happened in one of my local authorities—and the pressure, particularly on junior officers, could be strong. Senior officers and councillors would be pushing the policy, and the officers would in effect be going against council policy if they were to give reasons why it should not be approved.

I can foresee situations in which there is greater internal pressure, but I return to my earlier caveat about cost.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight. Perhaps I could now turn to the other strand in our debate—the need to strengthen the planning profession more generally. As part of our planning reform agenda, of which the Bill is an integral part, we have made it clear that we need to change the profile of planning, and change its culture, so that it is better suited to our objectives. We have agreed that we want a proactive, transparent and open system.

A key issue for culture change is mainstreaming planning, by which I mean putting planning at the heart of local policy making, in the broadest sense, and of local governance. The Bill, and the new planning policy statement 1, ''Planning Policy and Principles'' will together set out a new vision. The Bill will do that through the links that it will establish between planning and community strategies and sustainable development generally, among other things. We will consult shortly on a draft of the new PPS1.

We are working with key partners in local government—leaders, chief executives, members and officers—to build a consensus around some of the key issues. The issues that we have been talking about are skills, vision and raising the profile. I have already mentioned member training. Sir John Egan is looking at skills more generally and the Royal Town Planning Institute has published its education commission's report. Those things, and a host of other initiatives, are aimed at pulling the profession in the right direction, and into the right shape.

On Tuesday I told the Committee about a little meeting that took place on Monday, when I met representatives of three authorities—Middlesbrough, Wychavon and North Wiltshire—which had all hugely improved their planning performance. If I may say so, that meeting was in its own modest way a little accolade for planners' success. It also sent a message to planners about how important the Government consider them to be, and our wish to reward them with repute and resources.

That brings me to the subject of resources. Another way in which the Government have been playing their part is through the adequate resourcing of the service. By reducing the stresses in the system, and building extra capacity in it to achieve our objectives, we hope to build a stronger profession; we want to attract new and dynamic people into it in the first place, and to bring them back in if they have drifted to work in other related subject areas such as regeneration—or, indeed, to working for big developers, such as those that the hon. Member for Cotswold was with yesterday evening. I was with the Town and Country Planning Association myself—I do not know what that says about our different approaches.

Our main contribution to dealing with this matter has been the planning delivery grant, but I want the Committee to note that we are also looking at charges and fees under the amended provisions introduced by clause 47. The new grant is worth £350 million between 2003 and 2006. Fifty million pounds was allocated to authorities this year on the basis of their development control performance, and we have consulted on the broad terms under which we will release £130 million in 2004–05.

The terms for next year will include the policy-making function as well as the handling of planning applications. In that context I should mention the costs of appeal; we of course accept the need for proper resources. In the light of the £350 million in the planning delivery grant, and the fees review, appeals are by no means the threat that the hon. Member for Cotswold has suggested.

It is early days in the life of the planning delivery grant, but we are already doing some research into its impact. Most of what we have heard informally is encouraging. Although the grant is not ring-fenced for the planning service, we believe that a very high proportion of it is being spent on planning. Authorities think that the grant will improve their performance and assist them in building capacity to deliver quality services in a timely way.

We hear that some educational institutions have found their planning courses heavily subscribed, as planning authorities use their grant to give their staff better skills to do the job. That is seriously good news. Although that is encouraging, our research will have to touch on the key principles on which the grant is founded. We have designed it to produce an incentive for better performance by making it clear that we will only give more grant to authorities if their performance continues to improve.

We do not accept the need for the new clause; there are adequate safeguards for individual planning

officers who may feel that their professional advice is being ignored. We have put in place a wide-ranging culture change initiative supported by extra resources for planning authorities to build a strong profession capable of delivering to the high standards that we expect. In the light of those observations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This has been an important and useful debate; we have covered a lot of interesting areas. I would have liked the opportunity to probe the Minister further on the planning grant, and whether it is going to the regions or the local authorities, but this is not the place for that. There are a lot of things in the new clause to which we need to return; we shall find ways of returning to them, but now is not the time. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 52 - Planning: Retrospective Applications

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

There are few issues that more irritate and concern local residents than the belief that if one builds something, one will get permission afterwards. That view is not shared by people who build something and apply for permission afterwards, but it is a widespread perception that planning authorities seldom or never refuse retrospective planning permission.

I am sorry that I cannot give the Minister more detailed information about my constituency now; I am sure that it would encourage him to walk blindfold—or not blindfold, even—round the Isle of Wight. In my constituency we suffer a regular flow of retrospective applications. So much so, that I have come under some pressure—I would not be surprised if other hon. Members have, too—to make development without permission against the law. Some people wish us to use the Bill as an opportunity to make it illegal to develop land without planning permission. I do not know whether the Minister has come under such pressure,

but I receive a regular flow of letters from constituents asking why that is legal.

We have to adjust the balance of perception in the public mind, without going so far as to make it illegal to develop without permission. I have therefore drafted a proposal that would strengthen the power of the local authority, and planning officers, and enable them to say, ''The law says that we do not have to worry about the cost to the developer of remedying or demolishing a development that has taken place without permission.''

Some developers overstep the mark. During an earlier sitting I gave the example of Persimmon Homes' development at Carisbrooke Park. That development has been through at least 26 different applications, which have changed the layout, the size of the buildings, the heights of the buildings, and in some cases the datum ground level. It has been made almost impossible for members of the public to keep track of the applications, or find out whether the developer is developing in line with the permissions given. Furthermore, many of those applications have been retrospective.

If a major developer such as Persimmon Homes is incapable of developing without putting in retrospective applications, I wonder what defences planning authorities and members of the public have. I suspect that developers do that on purpose. They use computers to find the layout that would achieve the maximum possible density—that is in line with Government policy, and I do not blame them for doing it—but then the people who are laying the foundations, or putting bricks and mortar on top of the foundations, gently shift an inch or two, or a foot or two, always towards the end where the development started, so there will be a slightly bigger space at the end of the development, in which a few more houses or units can be accommodated.

For example, a constituent of mine who lives in a bungalow in West Mill road in Carisbrooke found out that a wall would be going up at the foot of his garden—a blank wall, so there was no question of overlooking. Having looked at the plans, he had thought that the wall would be behind the garage adjoining the next bungalow, but because the developer had shifted all the buildings on the site to the west, the blank wall also miraculously moved to the west and ended up at the foot of his garden. Members of the public are enormously irritated when the planning committee, or sometimes the planning officers, feel that they are marginal and have no power to reject amended applications. Although it may not be the law, as members of the public see the situation, the cost of demolishing the house that has been built may seem excessive in relation to both the benefit to the individual and the planning improvement of the area.

Another example is an application for motocross at Arreton Cross in my constituency, where the works were begun on agricultural land before the application was lodged. The planners advised that an application was necessary, yet the works continued after it was lodged and before the planning committee determined it. Again, the people in the village of Arreton feared

that the planners had given the nod to the application. They also feared that the works necessary for motocross to take place on agricultural land—bulldozing the land, creating ramps, bumps, dips and hollows, and in some cases significantly changing the morphology of the area—were impossible to reverse, so that the planners therefore had little choice.

The purpose of the new clause is, first, to describe what a retrospective application is, which is detailed in proposed new subsection (2A)—I do not know why I used the phrase, ''be assigned as'', instead of, ''be designated as'', which is what I meant. Secondly, proposed new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the planning committee would be obliged to

''consider the application as if work on it had not begun,''

and,

''have no regard to any financial loss involved''.

The Minister might regard proposed new subsection (2C) as slightly more controversial, because it would allow the planning authority to

''require that the site be restored''.

However, that is only a permissive power, not a duty, for the local authority. The provisions would also allow the Secretary of State to do the same if an appeal for permission were made to him.

That is a sufficiently clear introduction to the new clause. The problem is the perception of, and public confidence in, the planning system, rather than the need for a change in the law to establish a different procedure. It is important that the public have confidence in the planning system, and it is particularly important that members of planning committees can see the words that give them a power, and understand that they have that power when they perform their difficult functions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I apologise to you, Mr. Pike, and to the Committee, for not being present when my hon. Friend started to introduce the new clause. Some of us were outside discussing matters to do with the Committee through the usual channels.

My hon. Friend's new clause would strengthen the expectation that retrospective planning applications would normally be refused. On Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) stated:

''The success rate for retrospective applications is slightly lower at 85 per cent. than that of 88 per cent. for applications submitted before the development has taken place.''

I replied that

''an 85 per cent. success rate for something that is otherwise unlawful seems to me to be a very high percentage.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 October 2003; c. 247.]

We should move towards a situation in which retrospective planning applications are not automatically granted; in fact, the expectation should be that they would not be granted. In the Cotswolds and elsewhere, canny developers carry out developments that they know perfectly well would

not get planning permission, and once they are built, the planning committee is more sympathetic because the development exists and it would be difficult to take it down.

I give as an example the very first constituency case with which I dealt. A constituent had built an entire house without having the materials approved by the local planning authority, which was a condition of the planning application. I supported the local authority in telling him that he had to pull the house down. He did so, and rebuilt it with proper Cotswold stone, as had been required.

Legislation to that effect should be on the statute book. Local planning authorities should get tougher with people who carry out unauthorised developments. Apart from anything else, there would be less need for retrospective planning applications, because people would not carry out such developments if they knew that sanctions existed that could be enforced by the local planning authority. I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clause, and hope that the Minister will, too.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The new clause would require local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to consider retrospective planning applications as if the development had not been undertaken, and to take no account at all of any of the circumstances arising from the fact that it had, including financial consequences to the developer, the home owner or anyone else.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiment behind the new clause. Clearly, the planning system must be fair. It must not unfairly reward people or developers who play the system—so I have considered the new clause very carefully. I understand the points that hon. Members have made, but I do not believe that it would be advisable to legislate in that way.

The new clause would require local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to ignore material considerations. That would be contrary to section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires regard to be had to

''the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.''

It also would be contrary to the principles of administrative law, which require a decision maker to have regard to all relevant matters. In other words, the new clause would not allow the Secretary of State or local planning authorities to take account in any way of the practical or personal circumstances that might arise.

Hon. Members may argue that the Secretary of State and local planning authorities should not take account of such circumstances. After all, those circumstances would not have existed if there had been a prior planning permission application. There may be many cases in which, for reasons similar to those outlined by hon. Members, I would agree that personal and practical circumstances should not be given particular weight in the decision. Developers might be playing the system, or there might be other circumstances.

It causes considerable difficulty, however, to argue that it should never be possible to take account of personal circumstances connected with the development. The ability to take into account those material circumstances allows decisions to be proportionate. For example, telling someone who has nowhere else to go to knock down their home because it was built half a metre higher than planning permission allowed, when they could have used permitted development rights to do the same work later on anyway, would be considered disproportionate.

I recognise what hon. Members are trying to achieve. All communities would feel that people who undertake unauthorised development should not thereby be placed in a more favourable position than those who seek planning permission in advance. They should be made aware that there are obstacles and dangers involved in developing first and seeking permission later.

I set out the figures in discussions of earlier clauses. The success rate of 85 per cent. for retrospective applications is, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, slightly lower than the success rate of 88 per cent. for applications submitted before the development has taken place. For major developments, the success rate for retrospective applications drops to 76 per cent. It is also worth taking into account the fact that retrospective planning applications make up just over 3 per cent. of the total number of applications processed.

We must resist the new clause for the reasons that I explained in relation to the material circumstances. However, I would like to consider retrospective planning applications—the 3 per cent.—further as part of our work on the enforcement review. I want to consider the nature of the problem and how big it is. There will be cases in which applications are retrospective because somebody simply did not realise that they needed planning permission, where the development is perfectly sensible, and planning permission would have been given normally—and it is right that it should still be given.

It is also right to encourage retrospective planning applications to be made. Once a retrospective application is made, it allows local authorities to impose conditions on the development and brings it within the planning system. If someone says, ''Well, we're not even going to bother putting in a retrospective planning permission application,'' there are no restrictions, and the only alternative is for local planning authorities to serve enforcement notices and go down the enforcement route in an attempt to argue at appeal that conditions ought to be imposed. That route can be far more time-consuming and costly to the local authority than simply inviting a retrospective application. We do not therefore want to discourage retrospective planning applications—but I do want to go a bit deeper into the nature of retrospective planning permission to assess how great the problem is.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to raise two points. First, if 85 per cent. of retrospective planning permission applications are successful, that proves the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who

said that far too many of them are automatically granted. Secondly, if a development is clearly against the plan, retrospective planning permission could be applied for and refused, that decision could be appealed against, enforcement action could be taken and that could be appealed against, then a judicial review could take place. Some persistent developers can use the system and through that mechanism prolong for a very long time the period before they have to knock the building down. In some cases, that period is not months but years.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman's second point is about the nature of the enforcement system and the time it takes. That is certainly something we are considering as part of the enforcement review. It is not necessarily specific to retrospective planning permission or to the new clause; it is a broader point about the speed of enforcement, and I do have some sympathy with it.

I do not think that we can simply argue that because 85 per cent. of applications receive permission, that means that they are automatically given permission because they are retrospective. I want to look at the figures more closely. They may well include many cases of minor applications, for example, when people did not realise that they needed planning permission for the work. I shall look more closely at that, and at the community perception that such matters are not handled fairly. It is important that the planning system is not only fair, but seen to be fair. I recognise the issues that hon. Members have raised, but the problem is not simple to resolve, because many different kinds of case are being picked up.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister has been helpful, and says that she wants to examine such matters. Does she expect to be able to do so during the Bill's passage, before it leaves the other place?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As I said at an earlier stage, we had hoped to respond to the enforcement review before the end of the year. I can undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know how far it will be possible to examine the matter, and the time scale over which I will be able to do so. I am responding to the concerns that he has raised in this debate and have not had a chance to discuss them further with officials, so I simply do not know how far it will be possible to consider them, or what time scale will be needed. I shall write to tell him what sort of matters we shall look into and what time scale will be involved, but I cannot give him a more detailed answer at this stage. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to the Minister for those words and for her promise to write to me. I hope that if she expects to do so by the end of this year, which may not accord entirely with the Government's timetable, it will be before the Bill leaves the other place.

My first point, which I make quite strongly, is that the new clause in no way anticipates that every retrospective application will be turned down. However, it certainly builds up the expectation that retrospective applications will be dealt with on the same basis as other applications, which I think is what

most people would like, in the interests of fairness. As the Minister said, people who play the system should not be rewarded. I do not believe that all retrospective applications should be turned down, and many of the reasons that the Minister gave are excellent reasons why some should be granted. However, it would not be fair, for example, to grant retrospective permission because of sympathy for a developer who had knowingly and wittingly built a house in a rural area with an agricultural condition when any reasonable person could have told them that there was no prospect of making a living from agriculture on the land available when they built the house. That is a very common example in my constituency, and, I suspect, in many other rural areas. People apply for an agriculturally tied permission, then try to get the agricultural tie withdrawn later on the grounds that the property is not viable.

I am not entirely clear why the Minister said that it was against every principle of administrative law that one should be required to ignore certain material considerations. If those considerations are irrelevant to the decision being taken, surely it is a duty to ignore them. Such considerations are irrelevant to whether a planning application should be granted, so they are not material and should be ignored. I hope that that is clear.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said, and I will read the letter that she sends me with great interest. I hope that she is able to deliver something later in the proceedings on the Bill. Perhaps a suitable amendment can be made on Report or in another place to strengthen the position. I hope so, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 - RSS: revision

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 125, in

clause 5, page 3, line 20, at end insert

'within five years of publication of the previous RSS, or sooner'.

The amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies were regularly updated. They would be revised every five years, so regional planning bodies could not rest on their laurels in the preparation of up-to-date and relevant regional spatial strategies. I assume that the Minister would want regional spatial strategies to be regularly updated, and will be only too happy to accept the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

There should be something in the Bill about updating regional spatial strategies. In previous proceedings on the Bill, we have made it more than clear that we disapprove of the regional element of planning, and we will discuss the role of regional planning bodies when we come to later amendments. However, we accept that the Government wish there to be a regional role to planning.

Designated regional planning bodies would not be properly democratically accountable, particularly in the absence of a referendum, but if they are to exist, their RSSs should be regularly reviewed—at least every five years. The hon. Member for Ludlow is right: such reviews should definitely take place within five years; indeed, we hope that they would take place sooner. The expectation should be that the RSS is regularly reviewed. After all, if the local planning authority is required to review its local plan documents regularly, there is no reason why the regional body should not live up to the same expectations.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendment raises the issue of when the regional planning body should prepare draft revisions. Before I deal with the specific amendment, it may assist the Committee if I explain why the timetable for the preparation of draft revisions to regional spatial strategy needs to be flexible, and why primary legislation is not the best vehicle with which to govern it.

Every region is different and faces different issues of differing complexity. Therefore, no two RSS revisions will be the same. That means that the time that it takes an RPB to consider all the issues properly, and when it will be necessary for them to prepare the draft revision, will vary. The time that RPBs will need to prepare revisions will also depend on the scope of the revision—whether it is a partial or a full review.

No Government have legislated for common fixed timetables for preparing, approving or adopting regional planning guidance or development plans. Fixed timetables are inevitably arbitrary and prevent the Secretary of State and the other parties involved in preparing RSS revisions from following the timetable best suited to the circumstances of the revision.

PPG11, on regional planning, set out an indicative timetable for the preparation of regional planning guidance. Its replacement—draft PPS11, on regional spatial strategies, which, the Committee will be aware, has been published for public consultation, also sets out such a timetable. It recommends that a project plan should be agreed between the Government office and the RPB for preparing the draft regional spatial strategy. We intend that the project plan should be published, and that the Secretary of State will assess the performance of the RPB against that timetable. We expect that it may generally take about two and a half years from the start of the revision process to the publication of the full and final RSS. The opportunity for more frequent reviews of particular parts of the RSS means that this timetable is fully achievable or may even be bettered.

Amendment No. 125 would require a regional planning board to prepare a draft revision of the RSS within five years of the publication of the previous RSS. It is important that RPBs have discretion to decide when best to prepare draft revisions of a regional spatial strategy. An RSS is meant to provide a broad development strategy for the region for at least at least a 15-year period and to address a wide range of issues and policy areas. It is important that it be kept up to date, but that does not suggest a fixed cycle of review.

A five-year review cycle might be appropriate for the transport elements of the RSS, so that they are prepared in time to inform the five-yearly reviews of local transport plans by county councils and unitary authorities under the Transport Act 2000. It is not necessarily appropriate for reviews of the RSS as a whole.

Clause 5(1) sets out a number of trigger points for the preparation of draft revisions. Usually, that will occur when the RPB decides that it is necessary. A key tool in deciding whether a revision is necessary will be the annual monitoring report, which will look at whether the RSS is being implemented in line with its aims. If it is not, we expect the RPB to say whether a revision to the RSS is necessary. However, experience over time may show that it would be sensible for parts of the RSS to be reviewed on a regular basis, and the Secretary of State would have a power to make regulations setting a time for such reviews. We have no plans to exercise that power, but it is sensible to provide for it. Regulations, rather than the Bill, are the appropriate way of providing such flexibility.

As a safeguard against the failure of an RPB to prepare a draft revision when the Secretary of State thinks it necessary, the Secretary of State would have a power to direct that it do so. After all, the RSS is the Secretary of State's policy, so it is right to enable him to ensure that work happens when he thinks sensible. The provisions will make sure that the RSS is revised when appropriate; an amendment setting an arbitrary fixed cycle is therefore unnecessary.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I hear what the Minister is saying, but unless the RSS is updated regularly—at least every five years—it will be difficult for local authorities to update their plans. Things might have changed, but the RSS might not have been updated to reflect those changes.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I think that I have said that there is plenty of flexibility in the Government's proposals for

the regular revision of regional spatial strategies. We differ over whether a set period should be laid down, and whether it should appear in the Bill. Broadly, I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Government are highly alert to the issue of the RSS. On that basis, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister. I have listened to him carefully and in many ways I am reassured. However, he drew attention to draft PPS11, a copy of which I have in front of me. There is almost a contradiction in it, in that it asks when RSS revisions should be prepared and answers, in paragraph 2.1:

''The RSS is part of a continuous planning process, not a document that is set in stone over its fifteen to twenty year life span.''

How can it have a life span and also be a continuous document? If it is continuous, it does not have a life span. I find that slightly difficult. Presumably it does not have a life span, but is a series of rolling revisions, in which case I have a lot more sympathy with what the Minister is saying. The implication is that the RSS has a fixed life span, so perhaps the Minister should not only have regulations to provide for that, but make changes to the draft PPS.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We can make changes to the draft PPS; that is the point of having a draft. The regional spatial strategy is meant to be a broad strategic document that takes a number of factors into consideration. I accept the hon. Gentleman's imagery of a rolling programme of revision, but the caveat that I would enter is—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I shall now suspend the Committee until this afternoon's sitting, and the Programming Sub-Committee will meet.

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 A

Clause 5 - RSS: revision

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. This morning, the Committee was discussing amendment No. 125 to clause 5, and the Minister was intervening on the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) when the Committee adjourned. I should advise the Committee that once the hon. Gentleman has completed his remarks, we will consider a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee. I call the Minister to complete his intervention.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I thank you, Mr. Hurst. The caveat is that the periods of revision will clearly depend on local circumstances.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In the light of the Minister's intervention, we have probably taken the matter as far as needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Copies of the Programming Sub-Committee's resolution are in the Room. I ask the Minister to move the motion.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move,

That the Order of the Committee [14th October] be amended, by leaving out from the second occurrence of 'New Schedules' in paragraph 2, and inserting 'Clause 5, Clause 2, Clause 40, Clause 46, Clauses 6 to 11, Clause 15, Clauses 19 to 36, Clauses 44 and 45, Clauses 47 to 53, Clauses 56 to 72, Clauses 79 to 90, Schedules 2 to 6, Clause 1, Clauses 3 and 4, Clauses 12 to 14, Clauses 16 to 18, Clauses 37 to 39, Clauses 41 to 43, Clauses 54 and 55, Clauses 73 to 78, Schedule 1, and the remaining proceedings on the Bill'.

That the Order of the Committee [14th October] be further amended, at the end, by leaving out '5.15 pm on Thursday 23rd October' and inserting '7.30 pm on Thursday 23rd October'.

I draw the Committee's attention to a number of facts. We have had 17 hours of debate to date, and under the terms of the motion we have a further five hours to come. So far, 35 per cent. of the time, or just under six hours, has been spent on Government new clauses; and 65 per cent. of the time, or 11 hours, has been devoted to Opposition new clauses. That seems to be a fair treatment of the Opposition's interests.

The Government have shown considerable restraint. We have been guided almost entirely in the emphasis given to debates by the Opposition—and not

more so than with new clause 49, on which we spent two and a half hours. In other words, we effectively spent two and half hours dealing with part 2 of the Bill.

We have already discussed 27 Government new clauses, 30 Government amendments, three new schedules, 20 Opposition new clauses and 18 Opposition amendments, and we have had seven clause stand part debates. It seems to me that proper progress has been made on the Bill. I believe that we have the prospect of further proper consideration. I ought to point that, as we promised, we published the Government amendments well in advance. In addition, as I observed earlier today, we have made every effort to publish the maximum number of planning policy statements and regulations in draft.

We have so far sat for an additional three hours and 18 minutes beyond our normal sitting time of five hours a day. The Committee will be aware that, on Tuesday, we were willing to go on for a further 47 minutes, but that we accommodated the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). We have been extremely fair, and it was not the Government who were taking an excessive amount of the Committee's time.

We have always been willing to continue the debate. We have remaining before us 49 clauses with amendments, nine of which are in part 2, and we have effectively had a Second Reading debate on new clause 49. A further 18 of those new clauses fall in parts of the Bill that were discussed by the earlier Standing Committee. Although we have always made it clear that the completion date was not movable, we have always been emphatic about our willingness to be flexible. Indeed, at our first sitting, I spoke of

''my willingness to be as flexible as possible''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 October 2003; c. 7.]

We would have been very happy to yield to an Opposition request for an extra sitting on Wednesdays, but that was not forthcoming. The usual channels have been unusually open, and we have regularly checked on how the Opposition considered the Committee to be progressing. At no time has there been any request for consideration of a Wednesday sitting. In all circumstances, the Government have gone out of their way to accommodate the Opposition. It has been a good Committee so far. Through the motion, we have expressed out willingness to sit for another two and a quarter hours. If we add up all the hours, we will have had an extra day's sitting by the end of the day.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We still need to put one or two things on the record, but we appreciate the flexibility that the Government have shown within the constraints of the motion. I am personally grateful to the Government and the usual channels for allowing the sitting to finish early on Tuesday, which accommodated me. The Minister's statement was slightly inaccurate. As I recall, we were due to have a vote at 6.25 pm, but we finished at 6.10 pm—15 minutes early rather than 37 minutes early: a slight difference.

We have made it consistently clear from the outset that eight sittings would not be enough, given the amount of new material that the Government are inserting into the Bill and the number of issues that remain from our deliberations in January. I said so on 9 June, as I mentioned this morning when the motion was debated, and at the beginning of this sitting, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said the same in subsequent business questions. I am glad that the Government, having steadfastly refused to consider any of our amendments in January, have now made some concessions in relation to one or two matters. I hope that they will make some more this afternoon. Indeed, I eagerly anticipate that they will as that would be a good thing.

These matters need to be fully negotiated. I accept the Minister's assertion that 35 per cent.—six hours—of the Committee's time has been spent on Government matters and that 65 per cent.—11 hours—has been spent on Opposition and other matters relating to Government new clauses and amendments. It is quite proper that a planning Bill that touches so many constituency cases should allow adequate time not only for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen but for Back Benchers, who have initiated some extremely useful debates and new clauses.

Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who found a consensus of opinion among Government Back Benchers in some of the debates that he initiated. Some of the Committee's time has therefore been very usefully spent, given the importance of any debate on planning. I do not know how many letters other Members receive from constituents about planning, but probably nearly half my constituency correspondence is about planning one way or another. I admit that I live in the Cotswolds in a very sensitive planning area, but it is unsurprising that colleagues want to raise such matters.

I accept that the time allowed has been prolonged, for which I am very grateful to the Government. As the Minister says, an extra sitting gives us an extra day, but I still do not believe that nine sittings are enough. As I said at the outset, 12 would have been about right. I hope that we will have adequate time on Report to deal with the outstanding matters. The Government tell us that the Report stage will be held after the Queen's Speech, and I hope that we will not be severely timetabled to an hour or two. We need to discuss that through the usual channels. I give the Minister notice that I believe that we need at least a complete day on the Floor of the House on Report, or possibly longer. I need to reflect on that. Then, of course, it will go to the other place. It is important that these matters are debated properly. People outside will not understand that whole chunks of the Bill are undebated.

I return to the subject of timetabling. This morning, Mr. Hurst, your co-Chairman said that the Modernisation Committee was considering the matter. Several points need to be made about timetabling. First, I do not like it. I would have been

more than happy to agree to have no timetable, as the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and I did when we were the usual channels for the Committee considering the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. That Committee lasted for six weeks, and we finished exactly on the day on which I had given an undertaking to the Government usual channels that we would. That is a far better way of working because things can go wrong in Committee—as we found under the straitjacket of the motion that was passed in the House this morning—and it makes much more sense than going on until 7.30 pm, thus inconveniencing every Member. I do not mind. I would have been happy to go on until midnight, as the Minister offered, although he then retracted that. It does not make any difference to me, but that is not a clever way of working. We would have been much better off doing that, but we could not do that under the terms of the timetable agreed by the House. The Standing Orders need to be more flexible so that we can discuss such matters.

With those few remarks, I reiterate to the Government that not enough time was allowed for this Bill. However, we are grateful for the Government's flexibility, and we will do our best to proceed expeditiously and see how much we can get through.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Right from the start, our position on the matter has been to give the Government their head in terms of making decisions about timetabling. We have always had concerns about the amount of time available, which we raised from the start. Clearly, we would not have finished everything, even if we had gone on until midnight, as the Minister offered. I felt duty bound to accept that offer. Unfortunately, it was clear that some of his colleagues probably wished that he had not said that.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

So does he.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Indeed. Inspiration winged its way—not from his usual sources, but from those behind him. I felt duty bound to accept the midnight offer, but see that we will now finish at 7.30 pm.

The Government ought to be credited with the fact that they have been flexible in changing the order of consideration so that we can discuss certain amendments, including a Government amendment to clause 40, which will make a substantive change to the planning system. If the Committee had not got to that, we would not have done the Bill, or practitioners, a service. With that, and the fact that I would have liked to continue until midnight, I will leave the matter there.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 126, in

clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 127, in

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

'( ) For its area that is part of the RPB's region, the relevant authority, as described under section 4(2), shall assist the RPB in preparing a draft revision of the RSS.'.

Amendment No. 199, in

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

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

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 5, page 3, line 26, at end insert—

'( ) the need to integrate considerations of landuse planning, transport and sustainable resource management;

( ) placing protection of the environment as the overarching principal consideration of the RSS;'.

Amendment No. 129, in

clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

'(da) the views of the authorities in section 4(2);'.

Amendment No. 200, in

clause 5, page 3, leave out line 34 and insert—

'(f) the Regional Economic Strategy for its region;

(g) the Minerals and Waste Strategies prepared by County Councils within its region;

(h) such other matters as are prescribed.'.

Amendment No. 131, in

clause 5, page 3, line 38, after 'prepare', insert 'and publish'.

Amendment No. 134, in

clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert

', and—

(aa) carry out full public consultation on the draft.

(6A) After consultation, the RPB must produce a second draft revision incorporating any changes it deems desirable in the light of the views expressed.The RPB must then—

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

(b) submit them to the Regional elected Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary os State.'.

Amendment No. 135, in

clause 5, page 4, leave out line 7.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Seven of the amendments have been tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and two have been tabled by the Conservative Front Bench. Amendment No. 126 would remove the need for the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision. I just have a simple question: why should it have to do that—particularly if ministerial instructions oblige it to do so regularly? In debating the previous amendment, the Minister said that regulations would allow a Minister to dictate the period of time in which

revisions should take place. In that case, why is a formal process necessary, under which the regional planning body must tell the Minister that it is about to begin the work? That seems an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and I am sure that the Minister is keen to remove bureaucracy in the planning system.

Amendment No. 127 would ensure that certain local authorities would have to assist the regional planning body in preparing a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. That is to ensure dialogue between all the relevant authorities.

Amendment No. 128 would ensure that in preparing the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy the regional planning body must have regard to, first,

''the need to integrate considerations of land-use planning, transport and sustainable resource management''

and, secondly,

''placing protection of the environment as the over-arching principal consideration of the RSS''.

We tabled it to try to introduce the concept of sustainability into the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. I know what the Minister is going to tell me about that. He will say that there is no need for an amendment, because next week the Government will publish the planning policy statement on sustainability, and the issue will be covered.

Terry Rooney (Labour, Bradford North)

It is tomorrow.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It is tomorrow. Inspiration has winged its way to me from the Labour Benches.

I know what the Minister will say, but the amendment was tabled because we had no indication of what the Government's definitions of sustainability would be, or how they would be produced. We now know the answer, and I repeat that it would have been helpful to have the relevant information in advance.

Amendment No. 129 is intended to ensure that when it is preparing the draft revision the regional planning body must have regard to

''the views of the authorities in section 4(2)''—

which are a county council, a metropolitan district council, a district council for an area with no county council, or a national park authority. That is meant to ensure cross-authority dialogue and consultation, which I am sure the Minister would want. I am concerned about what may happen if that is not made explicit. Regional planning bodies may choose not to follow guidance, whereas they would have no choice about complying with a provision in the Bill.

Amendment No. 131 would ensure publication, not just preparation, of

''a report of the findings of the appraisal''

under clause 5(4)(b). The appraisal in question would relate to the sustainability of the proposals in the draft. There is currently no requirement for publication. I should have thought, what with open government and all that, that the Minister would be falling over himself to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 134 would ensure full public consultation on the draft revision of the regional

spatial strategy. Not only would it ensure that the public would be consulted, but it would also mean that the regional planning body would have to produce a second draft incorporating any ideas from the consultation that it deemed important. The amendment is in a sense an attempt to make sure that real consultation, not sham consultation, is what takes place.

About 10 years ago in Shropshire county council—it could have been anywhere—a Labour councillor who had better remain nameless asked in an open meeting, ''How can we consult? We haven't decided what we're going to do yet.'' I am sure that he has come a long way since. The intention behind the provisions is not to allow those attitudes to fall into place regionally. Again, I am sure that the Minister would be only too happy to ensure that such consultation is genuine consultation, and not just an attempt to window-dress for the public.

Amendment No. 135, which is my final amendment in the group, would mean that the regional planning body would not have to submit the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State. Under amendment No. 134, the draft revision would have to be submitted

''to the Regional elected Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State.''

Why should the Secretary of State have primacy over the elected regional Assembly where one exists? Where democratic accountability is built in, we would surely expect the draft revision to go to the regional Assembly rather than to the Secretary of State. After all, the Welsh and Scottish spatial plans would not come to London and be presented to the Minister. Rather, they rest with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I may be wrong, but I do not expect to see the Minister sitting and working through the details of the Welsh spatial strategy. In that case, why does the draft revision need to go to the Secretary of State where there are elected regional Assemblies? Why can it not rest with the elected regional authority?

Those are my seven amendments, and I shall let the Conservatives speak to theirs, both of which we broadly support.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I would like first to address the Committee on amendments No. 199 and 200. Amendment No. 199 says:

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

That is a long-winded way of saying that there should be proper public consultation in the Bill. We have at huge length dealt with part 2 of the Bill on making local plans, and are now on part 1, which deals with regional aspects, on which it would be thoroughly desirable to have complete public consultation as well.

The Minister said earlier in our proceedings that he did not feel that many outside individuals would want to take part in that consultation, except for one or two specialist lobbying organisations. I think and hope

that he is wrong in that assessment. Some of my more articulate constituents, who write to me regularly and often about planning, will want to take part in the process, so we must take amendment No. 199 seriously and make the process easy and accessible to them.

Before discussing the role of county councils in relation to amendment No. 129, I should like to turn to amendment No. 200, which says in paragraph (g) that in preparing the regional spatial strategy, regard must be had for

''the Minerals and Waste Strategies prepared by County Councils within its region,''

and

''such other matters as are prescribed.''

I do not know how it would be possible to draw up a proper regional spatial strategy without considering the minerals and waste strategies prepared by county councils. That issue impinges on so many other things that it would have to be considered. Other matters like minerals and waste strategies will also need to be considered. If the Minister is not minded to accept amendment No. 200, he will need to explain carefully how that will work.

I would like to come back to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 129, and discuss the view of authorities in section 4(2). As one might expect, we have had a number of representations from county councils. A particularly good one was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) by his county council, Essex county council. It is worth putting on the record what it says are the issues that define statutory roles for county councils in drawing up the RSS. It says:

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

Of course that will need their commitment.

''Given the lack of other formal engagement in the new planning system, it will be particularly important for county councils to have a statutory role in helping to prepare the RSS. The Bill proposes that the role of county councils will be to advise district authorities on the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) (if asked) and provide technical advice to the regional planning body and assist on the sub-regional aspects of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) (again, if asked). This role is not statutory.

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

I made that point this morning when we were discussing chief planning officers. I have a real fear as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a professional that if we do not deal with the transitional arrangements carefully, there will be a severe haemorrhaging of experienced planning officers from county councils. The Government will need to address that.

The representations continue:

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

Even more importantly, if that does not exist at regional levels and county councils are haemorrhaging staff, we could find ourselves with a gap in expertise, at least for a time.

''The government has indicated that from next year, money currently going to county councils will go direct to Regional Planning Bodies.''

That is exactly what I have been saying throughout the Committee. The money is all going to set up those regional planning bodies—on expensive buildings, new staff, probably expensive buildings in Brussels, and everything else.

The document continues by stating that the way in which

''county councils are expected to continue to provide input with less money and an intermittent, insecure and voluntary role, at the request of their partners, is not explained. At best, county council resources in these areas will slowly wither away. Political commitment will inevitably decline for what will have become an ancillary activity and not a core function.

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

We need to consider that matter carefully, and consider how the transition will take place vis-à-vis county councils and vis-à-vis drawing up the plans. I already cited the Government's desire that the local development scheme should be in operation by the end of next year, and the actual plan documents by 2007. That is an ambitious target. It is going to need every bit of good will from every authority. If we do not put such matters in the Bill, or at least have clarity in Government guidance, I do not know how we will achieve what the Government have set out to do.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Hurst and know how much you are looking forward to the somewhat longer sitting that beckons. I welcome also the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), the other voice of the land of paradise in our Committee. It is a delight to see him in his place.

This is a large group of amendments and it covers a lot of ground on the new regional planning arrangements. Perhaps I might begin by indicating to the Committee my understanding of the purport of the amendments, so that we are absolutely clear about the ground on which we stand. Amendment No. 126 would remove the requirement for the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision—an RSS. I will, with the indulgence of the Committee, move to those initials so beloved of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, and regional spatial strategies henceforward will be RSSs in Hill-speak.

Amendment No. 127 would require for their own areas county councillors, unitary authorities and national park authorities to help the RPB, aka the regional planning body, to prepare draft revisions of the RSS. Amendment No. 199 would require the RPB to set out, before it began to prepare a draft revision of the RSS, proposals to secure public consultation on the contents of the revision in line with guidance from the Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 128 would explicitly require the RPB to consider the need to integrate transport, land use planning and the sustainable management of resources and place the protection of the environment as the overarching principle when preparing a draft revision of the RSS. Amendment No. 129 would require the RPB to have regard to the views of county councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities in preparing a draft revision to the RSS. Amendment No. 200 would specify the regional economic strategy and county mineral waste strategies as matters to which the RPB must have regard when preparing a draft revision of the RSS.

Amendment No. 131 would require an RPB to publish the report of the sustainability appraisal of a draft revision, and amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are intended to provide for the RPB to prepare and consult on a draft revision of the RSS twice before submitting the second draft of that revision to the elected regional assembly or, if there is not one, to the Secretary of State. So far, so good.

I should like to deal first with the amendments concerning the role of county councils and other types of authority with an expertise in strategic planning in the regional planning arrangements in part 1 of the Bill. We have just published for consultation the draft regulations and guidance on regional and local planning under the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Hurst, have had time to digest their contents, but I should like to take the opportunity to set out in detail the role of the authorities in the new regional planning system.

The authorities will have a critical strategic role in the new regional planning arrangements for involvement and partnership working. The provision for that role is not only in the Bill but also in regulations and guidance. I stress that it is only from those authorities that the RPBs must consider whether assistance is desirable and, if so, try to arrange it. This is not about officers from those authorities working to an RPB brief. If an RPB enters an arrangement with a county council, for example, it will be an agreement between the council and the RPB. They will work together and county officers will report to their members.

Regulations will ensure that these also have a significant input to draft RSS revisions. RPBs will have to consult them up front before finalising proposals to put to the Secretary of State. Thereafter, those authorities will be kept informed and consulted at each stage. The RPB will also have to prepare a statement on whom it has consulted, what they said and how it is taking that into account. That will also reinforce the need for the RPB to have properly involved those authorities in preparing a draft revision of the RSS.

The final element of the package that defines the role of those authorities is guidance. Draft PPS11 makes it clear that the RPB should be particularly careful to ensure that it works on a partnership basis with the authorities to ensure strategy buy-in. The PPS

draws particular attention to the role of counties and unitary councils in assisting the RPB in developing the policy and, subsequently, implementing it through their service responsibilities—education and transport, for example.

PPS11 states that that should be a two-way process in that priorities in those service areas should help to shape the RSS revision. PPS11 also states that the counties will have a particularly important role in sub-regional studies, both as participants and, often, as leaders, working to an agreed brief drawn up by the RPB in conjunction with them and other interested planning authorities and stakeholders. The guidance also makes it clear that the Government expect RPBs and those authorities entering arrangements to work together in all regions. For example, the authorities might provide technical expertise, help or lead work on sub-regional elements.

I have covered this at some length, but I have done so in order to demonstrate that we fully expect counties and these other councils to help the RPB prepare draft revisions to RSSs. RPBs will seek and take account of these authorities' views when preparing draft revisions and, doubtless, in their wider work.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he was coming to this matter, but I should be grateful if he would explain how, if he is going to take the money away from county councils and give it to the regions, the counties will have the resources to carry out that strategic function.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is not as if, I might say, the counties are going to be entirely stripped of all kinds of funding. There will be funding available in relation to their continuing strategic functions. The picture of a kind of stripping out of the county level and its funnelling into the financial milch cow of the regional chambers is somewhat exaggerated.

I turn now to the amendments that we are debating. Amendment No. 127 is not acceptable because a duty for those councils to help the RPB would not work in practice. It is not, for example, sensible to compel a county council to help an RPB when it is not willing to do so voluntarily. An involuntary working relationship risks problems and delays, with disputes about who is responsible for what. That is why clause 4 is framed as it is. The RPB must be willing, the county must be willing and they must arrange together what the county is to do.

Amendment 129 is about the RPB taking account of the views of those authorities. I have already explained how regulations and guidance will achieve that. Amendment 129 is not therefore necessary.

I turn now to the amendments about consultation on draft revisions to RSS. Community involvement—it needs to be involvement not simply consultation—should be central to the process. The issue is how best that will actually be achieved.

It is certainly sensible, as amendment 199 proposes, for the RPB to set out its proposals for consultation

and for the Secretary of State to give guidance on that. That is what will happen. Draft PPS11 requires that, as part of the project plan, the RPB sets out how it proposes to involve the community from the beginning to the end of the revision process. We expect community involvement to be project managed in the same way as the rest of the RSS revision process of which it is an integral part.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the few Committee members who have not had time to digest the package of draft regulations and guidance that was circulated on 14 October if I remind them of the main elements of the comprehensive arrangements for community involvement that we have set out in the draft regulations and in PPS11.

The regional planning body is required by the draft regulations to consult a number of specific and representative bodies in drawing up the draft RSS. At the same time, it is required to send the Secretary of State a statement setting out who has been consulted and how, the main issues raised and how they have been addressed in the draft revision. It is also required to send copies of the draft RSS and supporting documents to all those whom the RPB thinks may have an interest or who have made representations, and to make copies of the draft RSS and supporting documents available around the region and on the web.

Both in the main body of the text and in an annex on community involvement, PPS11details what the RPB should and could do to involve the community. I give a couple of examples. The RPB must hold a one-day public conference to seek agreement that the issues identified for the revision are the right ones. Secondly, the RPB must consider establishing a group, chaired and comprised of people from outside the RPB and the local authorities, that should be consulted at milestones, as the draft RSS emerges.

To require the publication of a first and a second draft, as suggested in amendments Nos. 134 and 135 would be too prescriptive. The RPB may wish to do that, but it should be the planning body's decision. It should be based on the circumstances of the revision, and have regard to the need to stick to the timetable set out in PPS11, of twelve months between an agreed project plan and the submission of the draft revision to the Secretary of State.

As I have said so often, we want involvement to be front-loaded as much as possible. The stage when the community's input will make most difference is often while the formal document is emerging, not once the draft has been published.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I welcome the Minister's remarks about involvement being front-loaded. Will he expand his guidance to give local authorities every encouragement to hold planning meetings at a time when people who work, those who have responsibility for child care or the care of the elderly, and people who have difficulty accessing public transport, will be able to attend? It is no good such meetings taking place in county hall on a Wednesday afternoon, when many people are working.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for yet another eminently relevant and sensible contribution. I assure him that we will certainly take those suggestions on board when we finalise our draft guidance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has just lumped together amendments Nos. 134 and 135, and said that they would mean having to publish two drafts, and that they would be too prescriptive. He completely glossed over the issue of whether, if there is an elected regional assembly, the RPB should have to submit a statement to the Secretary of State, as set out in the Bill. He may be right that the amendments are too prescriptive in other ways, but together they would mean that a regional elected assembly would not have to submit a statement to the Secretary of State. That is, the amendments would treat regional assemblies the same as Wales and Scotland.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me say it again—I think that I have said it before, but it is fundamental to our understanding of regional spatial strategies. When we have elected regional authorities, the strategies will be devised by the elected authority, and they will be the property of the authority. It must be remembered that, until that time, regional spatial strategies are the property of the Secretary of State.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The problem is that the Bill does not say that. Clause 5(6) states:

''When the RPB''—

it will be called an RPB whether or not it is an elected body—

''has prepared a draft revision . . . it must—

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

It does not say that when there is an elected regional assembly in the region where the RPB is, it does not have to submit them to the Secretary of State. It is implicit that the Secretary of State will still have the power to say yes or no to a regional spatial strategy that has been approved by an elected regional assembly.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Aha! The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. We shall amend the Bill under the elected regional assemblies legislation. That will resolve the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow on having spotted that, and having achieved the first acceptance of an amendment in this Committee—albeit this Minister, unlike his predecessor, rejects them with a smile.

I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said. There will be a problem with regard to community involvement in large regions, such as the south-east and the south-west. For example, the south-west stretches from Tewkesbury in the north to the Isles of Scilly in the south. It is a vast region. May I make a practical suggestion? Might the regions consider holding sub-regional road shows so that people in local areas can understand what their region is proposing in its regional spatial strategy?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That is an extremely good idea and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That should be fed back into, if not guidance, the ethos, culture and messages that we shall want to convey as we elaborate the process of community involvement under the regional spatial strategy framework.

Now we come to the amendments that concern the regional spatial strategy, what it should contain and the principles and documents to which the regional planning body should have regard in preparing revisions. I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed in Amendment No. 128 about the need for the RSS to integrate land use planning, transport and sustainable resource management considerations. Including that in the Bill, however, raises difficult questions about what we mean by those terms in a way that will stand up legally. For example, how would the parties opposite define, in legal terms, what sustainable resource management means? I pause, and no offers are forthcoming.

The fact that the regional transport strategy is a part of the RSS and there is a requirement for a sustainability appraisal on the draft revision of the RSS provide assurance that transport and sustainability issues will be looked at in an integrated way within the RSS revision process. The consultation draft of PPS11 stresses the need for the RSS to provide a development strategy that provides priorities for the environment and transport among other topic areas. Guidance is the best way of achieving the integration of those matters that we are all looking for.

On the second aspect of amendment No. 128, I am concerned that setting protection of the environment as the overarching principal consideration of the RSS serves to unbalance its purpose. The policies in the RSS should help to deliver sustainable communities for the future. It will be necessary to weigh up social and economic considerations as well as environmental ones, without giving precedence to any one in particular. There is no chance that environmental considerations will be ignored. As well as the sustainability appraisal on the draft RSS required by the Bill, there will also—as we discussed, debated and agreed before—be the strategic environment assessment directive. That will require revisions of the draft RSS to be subject to an assessment of its effects on the environment.

Amendment No. 200 would add the regional economic strategy in each region and the minerals and waste strategies prepared by county councils to the list of matters that the RPB must have regard to when preparing a draft revision to an RSS. The hon. Member for Cotswold drew attention to that provision.

My view is that it is better to leave the matter to regulation and guidance, which will provide us with the flexibility that may be necessary if circumstances change. Draft regulation 8 requires the regional planning body to have regard to the regional economic strategy in the region when the draft revision of the RSS is being prepared. PPS11 emphasises the essential importance of the RSS and regional economic strategy complementing and reinforcing one another.

The reason why we should not include the county mineral and waste strategies is simple. There will be a significant number of partial RSS revisions that will not be concerned with mineral or waste matters. It would not be sensible to require the regional planning body to have regard to county mineral and waste strategies for completely unrelated revisions.

In conclusion, the amendments would not change what the draft revision to the RSS looks like, so they are unnecessary. That brings me to the remaining amendments in the group.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Just before the Minister moves off the group, may I make one point? The Minister has this afternoon appeared to draw a distinction between involvement and simple consultation. He has implied that involvement is a much more active process, in which people have a much larger input than they do in consultation, in which they are shown something and asked to comment on it. Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention for county councils to be actively involved in the drawing up of regional spatial strategies?

I make that point because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has pointed out, the Government have an ambitious timetable for making the process work. If they are going to do that, realistically, it will not work unless county councils are brought within the tent. Will the Minister then say something to reassure county councillors and their planning staff that they will be actively involved in the drawing up of RSSs, as opposed to being just consultees?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, county councils are statutory consultees under the terms of the Bill. The answer to his question about active involvement is that I would expect to see such active involvement where the counties wish to be so engaged. I hope that that satisfies him and is a positive message to the counties—I am aware of some misgivings on such matters.

Finally, I come to the remaining amendments in the group. I cannot agree with amendment No. 126, which would mean that the regional planning body would not have to tell the Secretary of State that it intended to prepare a draft revision of the RSS. As I said, the RSS is the Secretary of State's policy and it is only right that the RPB should give him notice of when it intends to draft revisions to his policies.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In the light of the Minister's response to my intervention in relation to amendment No. 135, can I take it that when there are elected regional assemblies, the new Bill to give powers to the regional assemblies will also remove the requirement on them to tell the Secretary of State every time they are going to make a draft revision to an RSS that belongs to the assembly, not the Secretary of State?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

Amendment No. 131 is not necessary. I entirely agree that the regional planning body should publish the report of its sustainability appraisal of a draft revision of an RSS. That is required in the draft regulations on part 1 of the Bill.

In the light of the explanations that I have attempted to offer on this large and diverse group of amendments, I sincerely trust that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am much encouraged by the Minister's responses. For perhaps the first time, we have almost seen the acceptance of an amendment, even if it is going to be in a future Bill, which I suppose is half a loaf, if not the whole loaf. Also, I am reassured that when we do have elected regional assemblies, the Secretary of State will divest his powers to them.

We have long argued that if elected regional assemblies are to work and to prove popular, and if we are to win the referendums due to be held next autumn, we need to make it absolutely clear that they will have real powers. Most, if not all, of those powers should be devolved to them from Westminster rather than sucked up from local councils. Otherwise, the public will not want them and will not support them. This is the first indication today that a few more powers than were originally published might be handed down to the regions, although I understand that there were difficulties at the time in getting all the Ministers to agree which powers they were handing down. Clearly, this Minister is a much more devolving Minister who is happy to give power away. That is a very welcome step forward.

I accept the Minister's explanation that my other amendments are unnecessary thanks to guidance that has already been published or that is about to be published. In the case of guidance that has already been published, however, I must point out that we have to table our amendments at least two days in advance of a sitting.

I also accept the Minister's point that amendment No. 134 could have the perverse effect of creating unnecessary bureaucracy. I am also grateful for the tone that the Minister has adopted in relation to the amendments and for the first signs of a Minister prepared to let go.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 338, in

clause 5, page 3, line 26, at end insert—

'( ) local authorities' Landscape Character Assessments;

( ) the need to protect and enhance rural tranquility;)'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 342, in

clause 5, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

'(8) In this section, ''Landscape Character Assessment'' means an assessment carried out in accordance with the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland published by the Countryside Agency.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Minister may consider some of his remarks in response

to the previous debate to be appropriate in response to this one. I tabled the amendment because I believed that there was a particular need for regional planning bodies to have regard to the interests of rural areas in considering their regional spatial strategy revision, as most of those regional bodies, if not all of them, will be dominated substantially by urban dwellers, and some rural areas need to be protected not only for the benefit of people who live there and those who visit there, but for the country as a whole.

Amendment No. 338 would require the RPB to have regard to the local authority's landscape character assessment, which is defined in amendment No. 342, and to have regard to

''the need to protect and enhance rural tranquillity''.

What evidence do I have for my concern that insufficient account may be taken of the needs of rural areas? First, most of the regions that the Government have designated are built around very large conurbations, with the exception of those south of the line from the Wash to the Severn. Each region centres on a conurbation with a substantial urban population of more than 1 million, whether it is Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Newcastle, the south-east or the eastern region, but not the south-west, where the reverse is true. The further a region is from urban areas, the less account is generally taken of its needs. I illustrate that by referring to a consultation document on airport strategy, which the Minister's colleague has just published. That document was so knowledgeable about the regions of England, and particularly rural areas, that the map that went with it placed the Isle of Wight somewhere off Portland Bill. Not only is that the wrong place, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) knows, but it is not even in the right region.

I fear that such ignorance may not be confined to the Department for Transport. It may be present in some regional planning bodies. It is proposed that, should regional governance reach the south-east, the region would have something like 38 representatives. My constituency would share a representative with two constituencies in Portsmouth, two in Southampton and two or three across the southern part of Hampshire. There would be very little input, proportionately, for rural areas. I believe that rural areas need to be protected, and the amendment would deal with that.

In response to an earlier debate, to which I hope I can refer without being out of order, Mr. Hurst, the Minister suggested that PPS11 would contain a wealth of useful detail on what the regional planning body should take into account. I therefore thumbed through to find out where rural tranquillity was referred to in draft PPS11. Although I did not read every word, I could not find any reference to rural tranquillity or to landscape character assessments. Even when I turned to annexe A, the annotated bibliography of topic-specific policy, in which I expected those topics to be recorded, perhaps in alphabetical order, or perhaps thematically, I came across a page with nothing on it except the heading.

The Minister needs to add some information to annexe A, if he would not mind. It is at page 29, for the information of the Committee, that he states that the relevant information will be available in the final version of the PPS. Will he confirm that, in the final version, the annotated bibliography will contain reference to landscape character assessments and other documents? Otherwise, I will need a very good reason to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let us remind ourselves that the amendment would require regional planning bodies to have regard to local authorities' landscape character assessments carried out in accordance with guidance issued by the Countryside Agency, and to the need to protect and enhance rural tranquillity when preparing a draft revision of their regional spatial strategies.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight can anticipate that I shall not necessarily immediately embrace his amendment. However, the Committee has certainly appreciated the important issues that he has raised in a series of amendments—in particular the amendment on the subject of master planning, which was ably moved in his absence by his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). I found it most thought-provoking, even if I had to reject it, just as I must reject the amendment before the Committee. I do not believe that the amendment would bring about the right approach to the issues. They should properly be considered in the context of reviews of national planning policies and advice, and they do not need to be specified in primary legislation.

The hon. Gentleman made something of the lack of relevant references in the famous draft PPS11. However, he is looking in the wrong place. The right place is PPS7 on planning policy on sustainable development in rural areas. That is already out for consultation and the final version will certainly cover rural topics in relation to the regional spatial strategy. Indeed, the consultation now being undertaken on the draft of new planning policy statement 7 provides the opportunity for those issues to be considered, along with other planning policies for sustainable development in rural areas and the protection of the countryside.

If the need to have regard to local authorities' landscape character assessments or the need to protect and enhance rural tranquillity were to be identified as national planning policies in the final published versions of planning policy statements, clause 5(3)(a) would place the necessary requirement on regional planning bodies to have regard to those policies.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised a rather pertinent point when speaking about draft PPS11. He may have been looking in the wrong place, but annexe A of the annotated bibliography of topic-specific policy is a rather wonderful page with absolutely nothing on it. Does the Minister expect it to be a common procedure for the Government to publish draft policy with blank pages?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should protest. It is consultation par excellence. People can provide their own draft—that is what I call community involvement.

The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Can I take it from the Minister's statement that in future consultations the Opposition's views will be properly taken into account?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The Opposition's views are always properly taken into account—and instantaneously dismissed.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have not had the privilege of reading PPS7—I clearly should have done so—but I am glad that we will have the opportunity for a write-in vote on the bibliography. People will be able to write their own policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Regional planning bodies

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in

clause 2, page 2, line 3, after 'may', insert 'only'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 272, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end, insert

'if a referendum has been held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and it has been voted in the affirmative under the provisions of that Act.'.

Amendment No. 117, in

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

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The amendment, if I can find it—

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Would I be right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that the amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can give a direction recognising the body as the regional planning body only when it satisfies such criteria as are prescribed? At present, it is not a stipulation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. He has explained amendment No. 271 better than I can, so I move quickly on to the next amendment.

Amendment No. 272 would provide that the regional authority may carry out those functions only if a referendum has been held. This is an important clause. We believe that regional planning bodies should not be created until a referendum has been held and voted for in the affirmative. It is a question of democratic accountability. Regional bodies are almost exclusively made up of indirectly elected members. No one knows who they are. They are not accountable to anyone, or are only slightly accountable. The granting of such huge powers to largely unaccountable people is a democratic deficit.

I hark back to our previous debates on whether the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's policy until there is an elected regional assembly. I hope that we never have elected regional assemblies. If

we do, the whole democratic position will change. Until then, we have a democratic problem: the Government are rushing ahead with the regional planning agenda, in which we do not believe. They should carefully consider the democratic legitimacy of that.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I believe that I have already spoken to amendment No. 171, so I will move on to the amendment tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton .

Amendment No. 117 would leave out subsection (3), which states:

''The Secretary of State may give a direction withdrawing recognition of''

a regional planning body. It is not so much that I want to take that power away, as that I want the Minister to explain under what circumstances the Secretary of State might withdraw recognition of a regional planning body and what the consequences would be if the Secretary of State assumed the functions of that body. That is probably how it would work. That provision is particularly draconian, and I assume that the Minister will say that he hopes that it will never have to be used, and that he would not go anywhere near it.

We need to know—I am sure that local planning bodies would like to know—under what sort of circumstances the Secretary of State would withdraw recognition, and how the system would then function. If regional spatial strategies were operating across the country and one regional planning body were to have its recognition withdrawn, there would be a great hole in the planning structure, which would have to be filled by the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Secretary of State could cope with the minutiae that I am sure will exist in every RSS in the country, but he may struggle to find the time to do so. What arrangements will there be to deal with such circumstances? Amendment No. 117 is a probing amendment. It is for the Minister to explain how, why and what would happen in those circumstances.

I take this opportunity to add my strong support to the principle of amendment No. 272, although I suspect that it is not the way to solve the problem because the drafting would have slightly odd consequences.

The Bill will take some powers away from county councils, but not all of them: they will be left with waste and minerals. Those powers are currently administered by elected county councillors, but will pass to RPBs. By next autumn, we may have some referendums, which will hopefully result in yes votes in the three northern regions. It is conceivable that six months to a year later, we will have functioning elected regional assemblies in those regions. Short of an earthquake, the Government are not going to win referendums in the south-east, the south-west or, I suspect, most of the midlands, given their regional boundaries. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be elected regional assemblies, certainly in the south-east, in the foreseeable future. I regret that, as I would like us to have regional assemblies. The boundaries are wrong and should be changed.

We will have a period of five or 10 years, in which powers will have been taken from elected councillors and given to an unelected body, an RPB. We will have a quasi-elected regional body—not even that; it will have people on it who have been elected to other bodies—councillors roughly in proportion to the political strength in the region—but that is not really the same. The regional planning bodies will not be accountable in such circumstances. They are accountable to the Secretary of State. Essentially, until there are elected regional assemblies, this represents a centralising of power.—Ultimately, power rests with the Secretary of State. That is of deep concern to anybody who is a democrat or a proponent of the devolution of power, as I am sure that the Minister is.

However, for a considerable period, probably at least five years, there will be no devolution of power. Amendment No. 272 seeks—probably in an imperfect way—to ensure that the powers are not taken from the county councils and that the regional planning body is not set up until there is a regional elected assembly. Until then, we would continue to have the current structure. There is planning at a regional level—the Government office does some—but the power still rests with the county councils. I realise that that will cause the Government problems, because there will be different speeds in different parts of the country. However, that is a consequence of devolution, something that both my party and the Minister's agree is a way forward.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we already have different speeds in different parts of the country and that we already have different arrangements for London?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are in a multi-speed situation in terms of devolution and I see no reason why we cannot be multi-speed in terms of the rearrangement of the planning system. Once there are elected bodies—we heard under the previous clause that the powers will be taken away from the Secretary of State when there are elected regional bodies—there will be some devolution of power. The Secretary of State will no longer have the control over planning that he has at the moment in that he could call in the plan of any level of body and exert control over it.

I hope that the Minister will, if he does not accept the amendment—I would be stunned if he did—at least take good heed that there is an electoral problem for the Government. This is, potentially, the most controversial aspect of the Bill—the taking of powers from elected bodies and handing them to unelected bodies. I am fairly certain that that is something that the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and probably many Labour peers and Cross Benchers in the Lords will have an interesting time agreeing on. I suspect that the Minister will need to find a way of accommodating our concerns. If a line is to be drawn in the sand on this Bill, this is probably where it is. If the Minister does not accept amendments here or on Report, this is probably the issue that will cause us to continue to vote against the Bill, as we did on Second

Reading. We accept that there is much in it that would improve the planning system, but to take powers away from elected people and hand them to unelected people is a step too far. We cannot find that acceptable.

I am pleased that the Conservatives have tabled the amendment, even though I do not think that it is the way to deal with the problem, as it has allowed us to raise the issue and to deal with a serious democratic deficit.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased to support the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ludlow has pointed out, they sharply illustrate the key problem, which is that local authorities are going to lose powers either to a nominee or a group of nominees of the Secretary of State, or to the Secretary of State himself. Neither the nominees nor, to a lesser extent, the Secretary of State, will have any democratic accountability within the region.

The group of nominees that has been appointed to the regional planning body for the south-east of England, fortuitously, includes a member of the local authority in my constituency. His name is Harry Rees and he is the economic development portfolio holder. Until he retired recently, he ran a successful tea shop in Shanklin, so he is eminently qualified for such an illustrious position.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Which party does he represent?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

He calls himself an independent, but he is an ex-Liberal. He still works for the Liberal Democrats. Like many independents in my constituency, he has overthrown his independence to sign up to a dirty coalition with the Liberal Democrats—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is distracting himself.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I was merely responding to the question in my normal, courteous fashion. However, I shall take your advice, Mr. Hurst. He, at least, has the advantage, in terms of representing the Isle of Wight, of being a resident of it. The Secretary of State is not a resident of the Isle of Wight and most of the appointees to the planning body are not residents of the Isle of Wight. The Secretary of State is not even a resident of the south-east of England. He is a resident of Hull, of Clapham, and of Admiralty arch. He is, for one day a month, according to a recent article in the Evening Standard, a resident of Dorneywood. However, although that is technically in the south-east of England, it is so metropolitan that it hardly counts.

My only concern about my hon. Friend's amendment is that if the Secretary of State does not designate one of the bodies, then the Secretary of State will be the regional planning body for the south-east—or, indeed, any other area. While there is very little of advantage in a regional planning body that is designated by the Secretary of State—a series of place men appointed by the Secretary of State—there is even less advantage in the Secretary of State himself acting as the regional planning body. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that limited criticism. I shall, of

course, support his amendment, but I hope to have the opportunity to vote against the clause on stand part. One problem with the regional bodies is that they represent no known geographical area. There is no such place as the south-east of England. There might be such a place as Yorkshire—of course there is—but there is no such place as Yorkshire and Humber. There is no such place as the south-west of England. Any hon. Member who represents a Cornish constituency would concede that, at least going by the boundaries designated by the Secretary of State. There is, of course, a region known as East Anglia, and I shall not argue too much about its boundaries, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh might have a different view from mine. However, the idea of regions is alien to the traditions of most people in the area broadly south of a line from the Wash to the Severn. For that reason, among others, I reject the idea of regional planning bodies.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

As a proponent of regional government, I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the current boundaries. The Government made a big mistake in accepting boundaries that were established by a Conservative Government for an entirely different reason—for administrative purposes. I believe that it is possible to redraw the regional boundaries so that they can be accepted by the public and can perform a useful function. If the regions were such that they made sense to the people—such as the Marches region in my area, with which people identify—would many of his reservations disappear?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Some of my reservations would certainly disappear. The idea of sharing power over one's life is entirely acceptable to those with a commonality of interest. However, it would be difficult for my constituents who live in Ventnor or Freshwater to identify a commonality of interest with people in Guildford or Milton Keynes. I am sure that it would be equally difficult for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to identify a commonality of interest with the constituents of St. Ives and South-East Cornwall.

There is a strong divide—I received a newsletter about it the other day—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I remind hon. Members that the clause is not so widely drawn. We are not debating the merits or otherwise of regional government.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept your guidance, Mr. Hurst.

The point of discussing the boundaries encompassed by regional government is whether it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power over a region, or to designate that power to someone or something else. That is why I drew attention to the different demands of various parts of the country. I can see that I am trespassing on the Committee's time, and that they might want to deal with more than the first three clauses before 7.15 pm. I am pleased to support the amendments, but I think that we might have a debate on clause stand part.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I was magnetised by the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric and could not wait for him to continue.

I will endeavour to reply to this interesting and wide-ranging debate. To begin, I would like to identify the purpose of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. Their effect would be to alter clause 2 to allow the Secretary of State to designate a body as a regional planning body only if there had been a positive vote in a referendum for an elected regional assembly.

Some opponents of the arrangements in the Bill take the line that there should be no planning reforms in England. Instead, they believe that the new arrangements should apply only in areas where elected regional assemblies are to be established, if and when they are. As drafted, the amendments appear to go even further, implying that there should no regional planning bodies until such time as the regions have voted in favour of an elected regional assembly.

The Bill would make the Secretary of State responsible for preparing all revisions to regional spatial strategies and for exercising the functions of the regional planning board generally as he thinks appropriate. Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power under clause 2 (3) to withdraw recognition of a body as the regional planning body. The amendments raise two key issues—first, the need for reforms to regional planning and, secondly, whether changes should be made only if a region has voted in favour of an elected regional assembly in a referendum.

I contend that we need effective planning at regional level. The Government believe, as did their Conservative predecessors, that regional planning is essential. Without it, we cannot sensibly address the many planning problems that cut across administrative boundaries, or properly co-ordinate transport and other investment decisions to ensure that we get the right strategic balance. Decisions about correcting major imbalances between growth and decline in a region cannot be taken at a lower level.

A practical example is the 1996 regional planning guidance 13 for the north-west, issued under the Conservative Government. That was a good illustration of why regional planning is necessary. One of its objectives, which we supported and which was right at the time, was to secure a modest shift in emphasis to the principle transport axes running north to south—the west coast main line and the M6 motorway.

Of course, the regional planning system needs to be improved. It needs to be more responsive to regional circumstances and priorities, and better able to tackle strategic planning problems where they occur. Frankly, it needs more teeth. For those reasons, regional spatial strategies should be statutory, and so part of the development plan. We should not continue with a system where outdated lower-level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. We need a system for strategic planning based around interdependent areas on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative

boundaries. County boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at a regional or sub-regional level.

We need inclusive regional planning bodies, which consult with communities and stakeholders and involve local authorities, to take the lead on reviewing and proposing revisions to regional spatial strategy. That is what part 1 of the Bill is about.

I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold that the new arrangements for regional planning will result in a democratic deficit unless they happen only where there are elected regional assemblies, which he does not support either. First, a system enshrined in law rather than one based on administrative arrangements, such as the regional planning guidance issued as part of the current system, is surely stronger in democratic terms, if only because it is subject to this kind of scrutiny and debate. Secondly, the regional spatial strategy is ultimately the Secretary of State's document, and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and to this House. Thirdly, the members of the regional planning body are accountable to their constituent bodies, which include local authority members.

The arguments about the democratic deficit imply arbitrary, unaccountable decision making by the regional planning body, which is not a fair picture. Through legislation and guidance, we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest will have the opportunity to be involved in the regional planning process, which provides a place for representations, examinations in public and consultation with communities, stakeholders and local authorities.

The hon. Gentleman says that those changes should happen only in regions where people have voted for an elected regional assembly, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree. The regional planning reforms are essential and should be implemented as soon as possible. They should not be delayed and made only in regions in which people have voted for an elected regional assembly.

The Government are committed to stronger regional arrangements in all regions and establishing elected regional assemblies if people vote for them in a referendum. We made that point clear in the regions White Paper, ''Your Region, Your Choice''. We have said that we are committed to policies that recognise regional differences as a strength for the nation and that are developed closely with the people whom they affect. We want regional solutions founded in regional knowledge.

I shall turn to the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I have a practical question about accountability. Let us assume that as part of the regional spatial strategy a decision is taken to build 5,000 houses in a town in an area that does not have an elected regional assembly. The people of that town are violently against large-scale house building, perhaps

because they feel that their local infrastructure cannot cope with it. What democratic accountability is there for the people in that town? They cannot vote out their elected regional representative because they do not have one. They could vote against their county councillors, but the Bill denudes their county council's planning power. They can protest to their Member of Parliament, but he does not have responsibility for regional spatial strategy. How could those people protest democratically about a decision that they believe to be injurious to their quality of life?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If such a situation were to arise, it would be desperately serious. The premise of the hon. Gentleman's concern is inaccurate, because it assumes that the responsibility for a decision to build 5,000 houses in a locality lies with the regional planning body. That is not the case; it is the responsibility of the local planning authority and the local district. The regional spatial strategy will be a material consideration because it must be embraced in the local development framework, as he knows.

The responsibility for decisions of that nature is essentially for the locality. It is true that we expect the regional spatial strategy to identify areas of growth, of stability and even of restoration of the green belt. Nevertheless, local people will not face the hon. Gentleman's scenario.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I am not sure whether the Minister is right. This matter is germane to the whole debate. For many people, in acid terms, the debate comes down to this point. Will he explain which body will take responsibility for the allocation of the number of houses in different towns? In the past, responsibility has filtered through different levels. Under the new system, if it were decided to build so many tens or hundreds of thousands of houses in a region, who will decide where they go, working on the basis that most local authorities would resist large-scale house building in their backyards?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Perhaps I ought to clarify the situation. The Secretary of State is accountable for the regional spatial strategy, which will set the overall target for growth, but the local planning authority will decide the sites. Those houses would have to be in a development plan document for which the local planning authority is accountable. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I see where the Minister is going but it does not help me.

The local planning authority might have to decide the sites but it would not have to decide the numbers. The number of houses allocated to each local authority is critical. If a local authority is saddled with a certain number of thousands, it must solve the problem of trying to decide where they will go. The number of houses that each local authority gets is critical. Under the new system, how will that decision be taken?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Essentially, the global targets for local authorities emerge from the regional spatial strategy, but local decisions about the location of sites will be part of the local planning authority's responsibilities and will form part of the development plan document.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

May I help the Minister? The concern is that local people's wishes and local elections will be completely ignored. I use Kidderminster hospital as an example. A health authority that was appointed by the then Secretary of State—rather like the regional planning bodies that the Secretary of State will appoint—closed it, and the then Secretary of State ratified the decision.

Locally, the political party, Health Concern, which was opposed to the decision, won almost all district and county council elections. The decision resulted in the election of an independent MP with the second largest majority of any Member. It is probably one reason why I was elected, overturning a Conservative seat.

The expression of tens of thousands of local votes meant absolutely nothing, but in this case, there are local powers.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his interventions briefer than that.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me clarify the situation even further. It is, as I have said on several occasions, not for the district authority to decide the global target and what the numbers are. However, that situation, essentially, is no different from the present situation. In the present situation, with the exception of two-tier areas, the decision is filtered down through the counties.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I appreciate the Minister's courtesy in giving way. That is exactly right. Apparently, there is a county tier and the matter is then dealt with through negotiations between the county and the various district councils. However, that tier is being largely taken out of the equation.

Terry Rooney (Labour, Bradford North)

What about structure plans?

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Structure plans are going. In some cases, the regional planning body will effectively be taking decisions to allocate houses to 60 or even 80 different local authorities around the whole region. In the past in my home county, decisions were usually taken in Chelmsford and negotiated with the other councils in Essex; now they will be taken in Cambridge. Theoretically, those decisions will be taken for the whole of East Anglia under this model. What accountability is there in that? Ironically, when it comes to health, the Government have gone the other way. They abolished regional health authorities because, they argued, they were out of touch, and created strategic health authorities on a county model because they believed that such bodies were more responsive to local needs.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman slightly over-eggs the pudding in suggesting that Cambridge is so remote from Rayleigh that it cannot be aware of the local circumstances. There must be a geographical locus for such a body in any circumstances. However, let me reiterate that the body is not wildly unaccountable. It is constrained by statutes, instead of administrative law; the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament and his decisions are subject to parliamentary scrutiny; and, of course, the regional planning body, in its majority part, comprises elected members, who are accountable to their own

authorities. To that extent, we are not talking about an organisation that is wholly removed from any kind of democratic scrutiny or accountability. It has clear lines, in the traditions of our democracy, to democratic accountability.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The one area that will be considered as part of the regional spatial strategy that is currently considered by counties is transport and roads. Decisions on roads will move up from county level. I am talking not about trunk roads, but about A and B roads. Planning decisions on new roads will pass up to the regional authority. That is clearly a case in which a matter that is currently decided by elected councillors will be decided, at best, by people who have been quasi-elected—and I do not believe that it is as good as that.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let us remember that the Secretary of State does not appoint regional planning boards: 70 per cent. of the members of regional planning boards are decided on the basis of appointment by local elected authorities. They are elected members, like ourselves, and we would expect them to be responsive to the needs of localities. The other element that comprises the regional planning board is the representatives of the economic and social layers in the locality, who are also representative of local interests.

Hon. Members have ridden the horse of unaccountability a little too hard. There are issues, and they would be considerably simplified by the emergence of elected regional authorities, but in the meantime we are not talking about the arbitrary disposition of powers by regional planning bodies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As the only Member of Parliament who has ridden winners under rules, I am going to ride this race a lot harder. If a remote, unelected regional body makes a huge increase in a local authority's allocation of houses, there will be a lot of democratic dissatisfaction in that area.

The Government's record on such matter is not very good. The communities plans are an example of that. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) tells me that his local authority was not consulted before the community plan was announced, yet the housing allocation there is to be doubled at a stroke. If the Government behave like that, it is not surprising that, as the hon. Member for Ludlow says, local people will feel aggrieved and will take it out at the local elections by electing somebody else. The Government will have to address that problem, because there will be widespread dissatisfaction.

Imagine the local authority in my constituency, in the Cotswolds in north-east Gloucestershire, having a hugely increased allocation imposed on it by a regional body sitting 200 miles away in Exeter. That is not local democratic accountability, and the Minister will have to address the problem.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman speaks as though we were totally lacking in experience of regional bodies, but we have had the experience of the regional

development agencies and we make dispositions about which localities should receive investments through grants, for transport developments, for example. Now we also have the experience of the regional housing boards, where, again, there is a grouping of representatives of the local authorities that, in part, have recently been asked to make dispositions with regard to housing investment. There are always difficult choices in such situations; nevertheless, we have some experience that it is possible for regions to come together and agree about local dispositions within such bodies.

The examples from south-west Bedfordshire, the so-called growth areas, the global issues in the wider south-east and RPG9, which sets targets for housing growth relate to that. I fear that you may intervene on me at any moment, Mr. Hurst, because you think that I am going wider than the subject before us. I shall simply tell the hon. Member for Cotswold that despite all the protests about higher housing targets, it should be recognised that most of the growth catered for in the relevant provisions is indigenous growth. Local people who require more houses—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The Minister is absolutely right: he is going too far.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

He wanted to be ruled out of order.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Oh, at last. I fully acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was with us for 10 minutes at the first sitting, but after six sittings in which he has not appeared, it is my great pleasure, as we come to the dregs of our final sitting, to invite the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to intervene.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister is kind, as always, which was totally predictable. Having read Hansard, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has dominated the Committee with his excellent insights and held the Minister to account admirably. May I ask whether the Minister would feel happier and more comfortable if the regional planning boards were elected and accountable?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

It is the intention of the Government, as I understand it is of the hon. Gentleman's party, that we should move towards elected regional authorities. The Government would certainly be content for regional planning boards to operate under that particular form of democratic imprimatur.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer them to operate under an assembly, or is he indifferent?

Keith Hill rose—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. We are again moving into the merits or otherwise of regional governance, as opposed to the mechanisms set out in the Bill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I do not feel entirely rescued from that issue, but it is perfectly true that we envisage the operation of regional planning boards under the aegis of elected regional authorities. In the meantime, however, we recognise that there is a need for regional planning. The measure sets out that

regional planning structure within an effective and accountable framework.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I want to return to the example of south-west Bedfordshire—a subject on which I want the Minister to respond, for the record. If the region or the Government hand out hugely increased housing targets, surely it is wrong that the local authority should not be consulted first, but should simply be told after the decision has been taken. If that happens, it will give rise to much local dissatisfaction when the regional authorities draw up their regional spatial strategy.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a specific case, because I do not know the circumstances. However, the general principle that he enunciates is absolutely correct. We want that level of consultation and involvement in the elaboration of regional spatial strategies. All my remarks in our proceedings have carried that emphasis. For these objectives to be realised, we look to up-front involvement, to community involvement, to early discussions and to community plans at regional and local levels. I make no bones about the reasons for our commitment to greater community involvement—a thread that runs throughout the measure. Our conviction is that local people have the right to a large say in great changes to their local environment, but we also expect that process of engagement to increase the understanding and acceptance of the case for growth where it is necessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Before the Minister finishes speaking, I do not want to let him escape having to talk about my reason for tabling amendment No. 117, which, as I said, is a probing amendment. He gave a technical explanation of what the amendment would do, with which I agree. However, I did say that I had tabled it to get him to explain why and in what conditions the Secretary of State would withdraw recognition of a regional planning body, and what the consequences would be if the Secretary of State assumed those powers. He has not yet done so.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That is because I am still coming to it; I have been detained on other matters, but let me now hasten forward. Before that last flurry of exchanges, which I welcome, I was about to discuss the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. As I read those two amendments, the latter would leave out subsection (3), and both would prevent the Secretary of State from recognising a body as the regional planning body until such time as a region had voted in favour of an elected regional assembly. In regions where that had not happened, there could be no designated regional planning body.

That would mean that the Secretary of State would be responsible for preparing the provisions of the regional spatial strategy without any input from local authorities and key stakeholders in the region through the regional chamber. It seems highly unlikely that that centralised approach is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If it is, it seems wrong to suppose that the regional planning system would benefit from it.

Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw recognition of a body as a regional planning body—a power that I would expect the Secretary of State to exercise only in exceptional circumstances. As hon. Members will know, since 1 April this year, the regional chamber in each region has been acting as the RPB. I would envisage regional chambers being derecognised as RPBs if they fail the key test of being inclusive. The need for the RPB to be representative of key regional interests is something that we have emphasised from the Green Paper onwards, because only then can it take a strategic regional view that takes account of the interests of all stakeholders in the region. The draft regulations set minimum criteria for recognition of an RPB: 30 per cent. of members must be drawn from a non-local authority background and have voting rights on planning matters. Where the RPB ceases to meet those criteria it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to withdraw recognition of the body.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In many ways, the Minister is being reassuring; but as in our discussion on a previous amendment, I am sure that he will be able to assure me that when there are elected regional assemblies, we can expect to see in the Bill that empowers them the ending of the Secretary of State's power to withdraw recognition of a regional planning body. There will then be a democratically accountable regional assembly to which the RPB will be accountable, rather than its being accountable to the Secretary of State, so that will surely be up to the elected regional assembly. Given the Minister's previous enthusiasm, I am sure that he will accede to that.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, but let me develop my argument first and then we shall come to that matter.

If the Secretary of State could not withdraw recognition of an RPB, we could be faced with an RPB that was wholly unrepresentative, and failing to take a strategic regional view. Derecognition is ultimately and properly a decision that should be made by the Secretary of State, but that will not happen in a vacuum, or without prior discussion with interested parties. Any unreasonable use of those powers could be subject to judicial review. We will not act in an arbitrary way. In the unlikely event of derecognition being required in the future, I undertake to publish the reasons for it at that time.

Now I come to the hon. Gentleman's point. Those powers are necessary for the situation as it will be when the Bill is enacted, but when elected regional assemblies are established the circumstances will be different. We propose that an elected regional assembly should have statutory responsibility for preparing and publishing the regional spatial strategy. If Parliament agrees to that, it will be for Parliament, not the Secretary of State, to withdraw that responsibility through primary legislation. The circumstances will be completely different.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have just been looking at clause 11. Can the Minister explain who on an elected regional

body will represent the interests of, for example, people who are in the part of Yorkshire that now falls within the Cumbria county council area, but are also in a national park, and so will be dealt with by the Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In answer to that—[Interruption.] I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who represents a Yorkshire constituency, for the comment from a sedentary position that no part of that national park is in Yorkshire. As a Yorkshire person, he ought to know. However, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has asked an interesting question. It would be preposterous for me to say that I know the immediate answer to it, but I will undertake to write to him.

I have made my observations about our expectations of the situation when there is an elected regional assembly. The power to withdraw recognition is simply the necessary and sensible flip side to the power of recognition. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have had an interesting debate. When I dreamed up amendment No. 272—it was probably late at night—I had no idea that it would result in such a good debate. I thought that it would be buried under a large list of amendments. I apologise to the Committee for not having been ready to debate clause 2. Because the order of consideration had been changed, I was busy preparing for clause 40—but I am ready now.

We need to probe the Minister a little more. I seek your guidance, Mr. Hurst, as to whether I should do it now, and go slightly wide of the amendments, or whether you will allow a clause stand part debate.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate, but the final decision has not yet been taken. It will be taken subject to what is said during the present debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We need to examine how the regional assemblies are working prior to an affirmative referendum result. They are non-elected bodies. The White Paper ''Your region, your choice'' makes it perfectly clear that most will have between 30 and 40 members, so most are likely to have only 30 members. The Minister has already said that of those 30 members, 30 per cent. are to have a non-local authority background.

A county like Gloucestershire will be lucky if it has one or two representatives on the South West regional assembly. If the people of Gloucestershire want to dabble in the details to find out who those members are, they will discover that their members were indirectly elected by the county council. If they ask those members why, for instance, they have allocated a particular number of houses to the Cotswolds, the members will shelter under the resources and policy committee of the county council from which they receive their instructions.

The regional assemblies have no democratic accountability, yet through the RPB they will hand

down allocations of the number of houses—probably the most sensitive planning issue that we face. I wonder whether that might cause widespread unrest, particularly in the south of England, which is so densely populated. I acknowledge that many extra houses will be needed there—but the Minister relies on that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, the Bill makes a fundamental change. Such allocations used to be determined by county councils. In Gloucestershire there was a reasonable degree of consensus among the county councils and the six local authorities about where the county council's target should go. I cannot see that degree of consensus happening under the new regional structure, because it takes the decision making away from locally elected bodies.

If someone was dissatisfied with the targets handed out by his county council, he could easily find out who his local county councillor was. As I have already made clear, it will be much more difficult to find out who is his indirectly elected member on the regional assembly. Even when he has found out, that member will shelter under the relevant committee of the body that elected him. There must be an element of democratic deficit in the procedure that the Government are embarking upon.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

May I emphasise a point that I consider to be integral? Even under the current system of county structure plans, there was always a degree of haggling and horse trading about how many houses each district council should have. No one is saying that that was not a controversial process; it often was. However, because most councillors came from the same county and were relatively familiar with the areas in question, they eventually managed to broker a workable arrangement, based partly on the advantage of their local knowledge. The process will now be written for regions on a much larger scale. Many of the people taking the decisions about who will end up with so many thousands of houses in a local authority area will have little knowledge of that place or of the issues faced by the people who live there. That is a potentially dangerous move and, as my hon. Friend points out, will only increase resentment about what will be seen as a remote imposition of houses on people who do not want them to be there.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is building on what I was about to say. In practice, Gloucestershire will send its two members to the regional assembly committee that discusses the matter. They will be heavily outvoted, by 28 to two, they will go back to the county council committee that elected them, and it will ask, ''Why did you agree to this allocation of houses for Gloucestershire?'' and they will say, ''We are sorry but we were outvoted 28 to two; there was nothing we could do about it.''

I carefully wrote down the Minister's words. He said that the regional assemblies would be accountable to constituent bodies. They will not be accountable in the slightest. The numbers are such that those bodies will simply be outvoted.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Is the hon. Gentleman not confusing the numbers presently on the indirectly elected regional assemblies and those that would be elected to a regional assembly, which are not the same? One is much larger than the other. Secondly, could he explain why the procedure that he describes is fundamentally different from what occurred, for example, under Serplan, in the south-east, where a similarly indirectly elected body was responsible for the figures as they arose at a regional level and then percolated down?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says. In the current indirectly elected regional assemblies, there are more than 30—I accept that—but the numbers are not much greater, so the same comments apply. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, sotto voce from a sedentary position, responds immediately to the hon. Gentleman's second point by saying that the county council layer was there as a filter. While the region and the RPGs might have handed out a figure to the counties, the counties negotiated with the districts. A county is a fully elected, democratically accountable body. People can easily find out who their county councillor is and complain if they do not like what the county council has done. In Gloucestershire the system works reasonably well. The county council has a good dialogue with all six constituent local authorities, which, as the Minister made clear, have to implement the policy and decide exactly where the houses are to be sited.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In the context of the Bill, we are arguing about the difference between the current arrangement and the arrangement proposed by the Minister. However, one can think of a wealth of alternative arrangements that would be more democratic than either.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. However, we cannot consider that, as we are asked to consider only what the Government propose. That is a great pity. In that respect, it is a shame that the regions are set in stone and the regional boundaries cannot be re-examined. I am sure that by the time the Government have had a bloody nose and a few of the referendums have gone wrong, they will revert to looking at the boundaries. Then they might make them more acceptable.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh says, how the regional planning bodies draw up their regional spatial strategies is central to the Bill. If it is perceived that they are not taking full account of local people's wishes, we are in for a long period of dissatisfaction. I have listened carefully to the Minister. His arguments have been patient and cogent. However, in view of what he has said, I shall press amendment No. 272 to a vote.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I want to take up a couple of factual points. First, I should inform the hon. Member for Cotswold that the regional chamber in the south-west has 117 members, not 30, so there is an opportunity for a more extensive representation of Gloucestershire than he asserted. A regional planning body of that scope has capacity for representation of, at least, a greater degree of local information, knowledge and

sensitivity than he suggested. It is interesting that the likely size of an elected regional assembly in the same area will be 30 to 35, so democratic legitimacy may be gained at the expense of some intimate local knowledge.

A broader point is that in the past, under the previous Administration, the Secretary of State determined the level of housing provision in the county and unitary authorities with absolutely no opportunity for public examination of those allocations. The truth is that under our arrangements there will be an examination in public and it will be a considerably more open, accessible and transparent system than ever prevailed at the time when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Government.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Terry Rooney (Labour, Bradford North)

So it was wrong?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I would not have introduced the previous system, either.

I ask the Minister to consider seriously how the measure will work in practice so that local people do not feel aggrieved when they suddenly find a vast housing estate at their back door, which they knew nothing about.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Does the hon. Member for Cotswold want to withdraw amendment No. 271?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 272, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end, insert

'if a referendum has been held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and it has been voted in the affirmative under the provisions of that Act.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

Question put That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Clause 40 - Statement of development principles

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out from 'of' to end of line 15 and insert

'—

(a) the period of three years starting on the day the local planning authority issue the statement of development principles, or

(b) such other period starting on that day as that authority direct.'.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 205, in

clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand that in an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cotswold put forward an amendment to clause 40. He sought to delete subsection (6) of proposed new section 61D, which states:

''If a statement of development principles is issued outline planning permission (within the meaning of section 92) must not be granted for a similar development before the end of the relevant period.''

That period is before three weeks, or such other period as the local planning authority directs.

Subsection (6) was originally intended to avoid overcomplicating the planning process by preventing the situation whereby a developer can seek a statement of development principles that is followed by outline planning permission, which is then followed by an application for approval of reserved matters. However, as my predecessor on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said previously, we see merit in the earlier amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold.

I am aware that subsection (6) has proved unpopular. I and previous planning Ministers have received a number of representations suggesting that the provision could be used as a spoiling tactic by competitors who wish to prevent a developer from seeking outline planning permission. There have been arguments that it might be useful for a developer to hold both a statement and outline planning permission, particularly if the statement was sought at a very early stage. It has also been suggested that no one would ever apply for a statement if it prevented

people from subsequently applying for outline planning permission.

We have listened to the arguments and found them persuasive. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be able to accept amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are technical amendments brought forward as a result of amendment No. 8. The amendments do not change any of the Bill's provisions, but simply tidy up the drafting of the clause. Subsection (6), the provision which is to be removed, refers to ''the relevant period''. Following its removal, amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are needed to delete the notion of a ''relevant period'' from the remainder of the clause and instead make the durational provisions a part of new subsection (4).

I now turn to the non-Government amendments. May I pause for a second there, Mr. Hurst, to confirm that I am in order in continuing to speak to amendment No. 205?

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

The Minister should reply to it if the hon. Member who tabled it mentions it during the debate.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I welcome the inclusion of Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9. There were clearly significant problems, which were highlighted by Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers in the first Committee, with the abolition of outline planning permission. The Minister has listed a number of the problems, and I welcome the amendments.

Amendment No. 205 has been tabled by Conservative Members, and I shall be happy to listen to their arguments. I should like to ask you, Mr. Hurst, whether there is likely to be a clause stand part debate or whether I can use this group of amendments as a suitable vehicle to discuss the statement of development principles.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

The hon. Gentleman would be wise to keep to the amendments. I shall make a decision during the course of the debate as to whether it will be appropriate to have a clause stand part debate.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Hurst.

Having dealt with one problem, the Government have got themselves into another with their amendments. The problem concerns the relevant status of outline planning permission and the statement of development principles. Let me give an example, which will not be hypothetical. A member of the public seeks to purchase a house. The investment is substantial and they want to make sure that the surrounding area will remain greenfield. New section 61D(1) states that

''A local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles in relation to a proposed development in their area if they are requested to do so by any person.''

The person does not have to have an interest in the piece of land in question. Somebody who is about to purchase a house could ask for a statement of development principles on the adjoining land. They could say, ''I want to know whether it is possible to build a factory or houses on that land.'' They could receive a statement of development principles from the council that stated, ''Houses will not be permitted

because this is greenfield.'' That would be a possible outcome of a statement of development principles.

The person purchases the house in those circumstances. Now outline planning permissions are back, the statement of development principles will presumably have been issued by the officers of the council. It will not have come from the committee because it is a statement of principles rather than a planning decision. A few months after the person has bought the house, the adjoining field is put up for housing and outline permission is sought. That would be contrary to the local development document, but there could be good reasons for that. Perhaps the planning committee decided to overrule their planning officers—it happens—and granted permission. To all intents and purposes, the statement of development principles, which was issued only a few months before, would be utterly worthless.

Somebody could make a major financial investment in an adjoining property on the grounds that the council has just issued them with a statement of development principles. That is why I ask about the status of statements of development principles and outline planning permissions or, indeed, full planning permissions. Although we know that the statement of development principles is a material consideration in a planning permission—it is not a material consideration in an outline planning permission, although the Government may want to introduce that by amending the Bill—it is only a material consideration. Of course, there are many other material considerations.

I urged that our debate on clause 40 was brought forward because of this genuine worry. The Government have done the right thing in allowing outline planning permission for exactly the reasons that the Minister gave. However, in doing so, they created additional problems that have not yet been thought through to ensure that the system works.

I understand what the Government are trying to achieve with statements of development principles, but they could be worthless—people just will not bother to apply for them—or, perhaps worse than that, they could be misleading. The Government may envisage the statements generally being sought by land developers, but I believe that people with an interest in adjoining land will be the major users. They will see a statement of development principles as a means of getting a statement about the piece of land next to them. On the basis of that they may make financial investments, borrow against it or extend their mortgage on a property.

All of that could be affected, because the statement of development principles is not a strong document. It does not say, ''and all planning permissions will follow in line''. Someone is fairly certain to get planning permission if they follow the conditions in an outline planning permission, which is stronger. Hence, a reason that the Minister did not give for the restoration of outline planning permission is that there are many developers whose land values are based on existing outline planning permissions. They have borrowings against them. If such permissions were, to all intents and purposes, abolished overnight, many

developers would suddenly discover that they were close to insolvency. That was another concern that was raised about the removal of outline planning permission.

The Minister has done exactly the right thing, but he has left a hole. I hope that he can find a way of closing it. The simplest way—not necessarily the way forward—would be to remove the whole clause. If there were no statements of development principles, there would still be outline planning permission, and the system would work. That is the Government's fall-back position. The system would still work if clause 40 were removed.

There is good intent behind the statement of development principles, but there must be a strong clarification of its status and how it relates to outline planning permission, planning permission and local development documents. A statement could be issued on a piece of land and then a revision, which, I hope, would now happen much more quickly, could be made of a local development document. If the local development document related to the piece of land, it would instantly change. At present, that can happen with a local plan, but it could take two and a half years or more—and that is quick for changing a local plan—during which period the person would have plenty of time to get involved.

I foresee that local development documents will move faster than that. The council could issue a statement of development principles and then begin the revision process on a local development document a month later. A year later, everything will have changed and the value of the property will have been materially affected.

We accept that changes in the planning system can materially affect the value of properties. The concern is that statements of development principles will give people a false sense of certainty. The relative merits of the different components of the system must be made clear.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. It is my intention to allow a short break from our deliberations. Accordingly, I suspend the Committee until 5.20 pm.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Opposition have received many representations on this matter. It might be worth recording what clause 40 is intended to do. The Government's explanatory memorandum states:

''Clause 40 introduces a new procedure for any person wishing to obtain an indication from a local planning authority as to whether a proposed development would be acceptable in principle. On application, an authority will be required to issue a statement of development principles which will indicate whether or not the authority agree with the principle of all or part of the proposed development. The statement will not be a consent''—

I stress that—but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow made clear,

''its existence will be a material consideration for the purpose of determining a future planning application for similar development.''

While considering clause 40, we would have liked to consider my amendment No. 206. It relates to schedule 3, which abolishes section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which relates to outline planning permission. Schedule 6 also removes section 92 from the principal Act.

Having considered the matter, we would like clause 40 to be abolished altogether. We do not see the merits of the statement of development principles. We cannot see that it speeds up the present system or makes it more transparent, and we have had many representations in relation to that. However, having had our original amendment to abolish subsection (6) graciously accepted—that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I co-signed Government amendment No. 8; it has been a long time coming, but we won this small concession from the Government, for which I am grateful—it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the Government's proposals in relation to abolishing outline planning permission.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall respond to that invitation. I am aware of the anxieties of developers and house builders about statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. I know that developers see the latter as—I think the phrase has already been used—the bankable asset in the process. I am continuing to consider these matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am not sure that that gets us very far. Developers will still believe that it is in the Government's mind to abolish outline planning permission. Outline planning permission has been available since 1950. It allows the planning authority to give a decision in principle and to reserve details for approval subsequently. Outline planning permission can be granted only for the erection of a building. Reserved matters include the site, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping.

We have been told of a problem by a huge range of people. The statement of development principles is not a bankable asset. There is no certainty about it and one cannot raise finance on it. Let us consider a large-scale development: perhaps one of the supermarket chains wants to build a supermarket. It will go along to the landowner and say that it would like to do that. Under the old system, the local authority would grant outline planning permission, which would have a duration of five years. The supermarket would then be able to go away and get funding on the basis of that outline planning permission. The statement of development principles will not provide people with that certainty. Therefore, far from speeding up the system, the statement of development principles will slow it down and make matters more difficult, particularly in terms of regeneration.

We have received representations stating that, where it is necessary to accumulate large blocks of property to carry out urban regeneration, developers have already been through the compulsory purchase procedure that is in the Bill, and that that can sometimes take three years on its own. The developer then has to sort out whether he needs to

renew the consent. Permission is not straightforward or cheap, and a great deal of investment, in terms of time and money, is required to obtain it.

I am grateful that the Government have had a change of heart and deleted the ''lockout'' in subsection (6). It will be possible, if a statement of development principles has been issued, to obtain an outline planning permission for the time being. Those developers that have not got that far, however, will never know whether the Government will announce the abolition of the outline planning permission. In a way, the Government's lack of clarity makes the situation even more difficult.

I discussed another aspect of the statement of development principles with the planning officer in Wandsworth. Bearing in mind the fact that anyone can apply for a planning application on any piece of land, a number of people will visit the local planning authority to obtain a statement of development principles in order to freeze a particular piece of land and stop its future development. They know that the current council will not allow development on it, that it will produce the statement of development principles to that effect, and that no one will be able to apply for another statement or an outline planning permission for at least two years, under subsection (5). We tabled amendment No. 205, which would delete subsection (5), so that there would not be the lockout period of two years. It makes eminent sense, and I plead with with the Minister that, as well as deleting subsection (6), we should delete subsection (5).

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a double danger? First, people will seek a statement of development principles to block development. Secondly, given that outline planning permission has been reinstated, anybody could obtain an outline that would overrule a statement of development principles. They would have laboured under the false sense of certainty that there would be no development. The provision is in danger of working both ways.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. His scenario is a very real possibility.

I want to tease out why the Government have introduced the statement of development principles at all. The only reason I can think of is that there are a number of extant outline planning permissions on which development is not taking place.

We will discuss clause 46 and the duration of consent, but, if the Government are determined to reduce the period of consent for all planning permissions—not only outline permissions—from three to five years, they will prod a lot of people into putting more energy into developing sites. What, however, needs remedying? How many extant outline planning permissions are there; how far are they responsible for slowing down the planning system; and how will the introduction of the statement of development principles speed up the system?

By deleting subsection (6) and retaining outline planning permission with the statement of development principles, we have one eighth of a loaf. There is great concern among practitioners,

developers, retailers and wholesalers that the statement of development principles is not the answer. It will slow down the system and make it more difficult for them to develop difficult city centre sites. I have a particular worry over regeneration and assembling land with compulsory purchase when the compulsory purchase procedure is going to take a long time, and the poor developer, having got his outline planning permission, is then going to run up against time. Will he apply for another outline planning permission, or for a detailed planning permission? The uncertainty of the present situation will make things very difficult for such developers.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and to the Committee for not having heard his first few words on the amendment, but I find the arguments against the statement of development principles not entirely convincing. I am interested in what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say. There should be a clear understanding, on purchases of land, that simply making a statement of development principles, issued on the land that surrounds it and protects the view, is worthless. The hon. Gentleman used the word ''worthless'', and let us be absolutely clear that it is indeed worthless so that no one reading this debate, as I am sure many future prospective purchasers of houses will do, reads the first part of his remarks and thinks, ''Gosh, what a jolly good wheeze'' and does not notice that it is worthless for the purposes that he described.

When I served as a councillor, what the Government call a statement of development principles was known as a planning brief. It was drawn up by the local authority on a piece of land or small area, and set out the sort of considerations that it would have in mind should an application for that land come forward. The initiative could then be taken by a developer, who had perhaps had discussions with the planning officers behind closed doors. That was a way of bringing out into the open the element of those discussions that was of interest to local people, without disclosing what might be confidential. It had the great merit that local people did not feel that those matters were being dealt with behind closed doors, where a deal was being signed between developers and planning officers that the local people were out of until, bang, there was an outline application, or even a more detailed one.

Such matters were dealt with by planning committees or sometimes by the whole council—and we still did not meet for more than two half days a week. A planning brief, as we called it, would be issued that said that the council was thinking about a certain level of extra traffic, a certain sort of massing, a certain sort of landscaping, perhaps a three-storey building being reduced to two storeys where it abutted an existing listed building, and such and such a provision for car parking—car parking was quite popular with planners in those days. That gave a good picture for the planning committee to discuss. There might be consideration of transport access, bicycle parking, or footpaths and pedestrian access.

What happens in local authorities that do not have a development brief system? I shall tell the Committee, because mine is one. Suddenly an application pops up. It is discussed by the planners and the developer behind closed doors and the local residents are faced with a detailed planning application. I shall give an example: the Whippingham trailer park. My constituency needs a place where trailers—the back ends of articulated lorries—can be held preparatory to putting them on to ferries. A lorry cannot drive straight on to a ferry if it is not there; there must be a holding place. Both Wightlink and Red Funnel have great difficulty finding sufficient capacity at the ferry terminals in Fishbourne and East Cowes respectively for such trailer parking, because they are in the middle of towns. For a long time, there has been a need for a trailer park—a need that is recognised by the transport portfolio holder on my local authority, the transportation officers and the planning department. The only place it is not recognised is the unitary development plan. Somehow, the local authority managed to develop a unitary development plan without deciding where the trailer park would be. It was left entirely to private enterprise, to which I have no objection, to take the initiative and find a site. Presumably it has bought an option on the site.

We will bang in an application for that, which will be determined in six weeks, in accordance with Government guidelines. It is a detailed application. However, there has been no public consultation, and there will be none until the application is submitted. Consequently, members of the public have not had the opportunity to have their say about the level of lighting; the quality of the landscaping; whether access should be from a road called Racecourse road or from East Cowes road; or the additional traffic that will be brought into Wootton because Wootton village is between the proposed Whippingham trailer park and Fishbourne. Those issues must now be dealt with in the application. One must have good reasons to reject an application, but not to amend a planning brief.

All major applications of that sort would benefit from planning briefs. I accept that the Government do not propose that, but it would greatly enhance public participation in the planning process if the public could express their views on what would or would not be acceptable on a site before the formality of an application intrudes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

When those proposals are submitted, the owner, or whoever is making the application for Whippingham trailer park, will go through a statement of development principles. Under the Government's comprehensive performance assessment targets, 90 per cent. of all applications will be delegated to officers—almost all statements of development principles are likely to be delegated to officers—who will then issue a statement of development principles without consulting their committees. Once they have issued those statements of development principles, with no public consultation, the committee will have great difficulty

in turning down a full application because a statement of development principles is a material consideration.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I accept that entirely. That is why I had hoped that the officers, and the members, would not be so foolish as to delegate such sensitive requests to officers. As I understand it—the Minister is nodding; I have been told that it is useful to mention it if the Minister is nodding—it is wise that sensitive requests should not be dealt with by officers behind closed doors, but by the committee, with a full public consultation in advance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from what I said that I do not completely oppose the concept of statements of development principles. He has done the Committee a service by outlining a way in which they could work well, although I must say that his outline is not what the Government have envisaged. He may have given them a way to introduce statements of development principles, which would work in the way that he described without the worry of whether they have any value, as I described. He may well have provided the Government and their advisers with a route forward in that difficult area.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Minister was nodding so enthusiastically that I took it to be a commitment to introduce the necessary amendments on Report. He is not nodding now.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall never nod again.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

None the less, I genuinely hope that the Minister will take that point. I had not read the clause in sufficient detail to know whether what I am saying is in line with it; that is for other Members to interpret. I hope that these statements will be encouraged and that when they are requested, their consideration will be public business. I am interested in the fact that any person can seek a statement of development principles. I am sure that we shall have interesting applications in future.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Yet again, the Committee has seen the fruits of the 18 years that the hon. Gentleman spent on Oxford city council. I was genuinely interested in his reference to a planning brief. However, I am a nodder by nature—I am an empathiser. While I caution him not to read too much into my body language, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has got it right.

We have seen in the proposal for statements of development principles benefits both for the community, in the sense that he described, and for the developer. Let me immediately offer him this reassurance and attempt to add a little more precision to it. We expect there to be the same amount of public involvement in the drawing up of statements of development principles as there is for planning applications. Indeed, requirements are set out in the draft for the part 4 regulations under the Bill. They lie in paragraph 43, which I shall quote:

''A local planning authority must carry out the same consultation and publicity as it would for an application for planning permission.''

That is so that its decision in respect of the statement of development principles is informed in the same way

as any subsequent application for planning permission.

A local planning authority must take into account any representations received—it is intended that there should be involvement and transparency in those matters. As well as benefits for the community, we have also seen in the proposals benefits for the developer. The clause is intended to allow potential developers to ascertain the acceptability of the principle of a proposed development on a particular site without requiring the local planning authority to examine the detail. Its purpose is similar to outline planning permission, but it does not grant the applicant any consent to do the works. It is about half way between an officer's informed view and an outline planning permission. It offers advantages over outline planning permission, where issues such as quality and design are not always considered effectively, and where there have been concerns about approval being given before an environmental impact assessment has been carried out.

It is our intention that the new procedure will at first supplement, and might eventually replace, outline planning permission. As we have always said, we will not abolish outline planning permission until we are sure that statements of development principles are successful. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the Committee.

The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about the status of a statement of development principles and possible subsequent outline planning permission. Let me try to explain. A local planning authority must, when considering an application for a statement of development principles or an outline planning permission, have regard to the development plan set out in new section 61D(2). A statement of development principles in respect of the same site would be a material consideration for a subsequent application for outline planning permission. Draft guidance explaining that further has been issued this month. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am still somewhat concerned about the status of the statement of development principles. Let me put it another way. Let us suppose that a developer were to obtain a statement of development principles, but then went for, but was refused, outline planning permission for something similar to the originally proposed project. Let us say that the officer dealt with the developer the first time, but that the committee then refused the outline planning permission, perhaps against the advice of the officer. Would there then be grounds for an appeal against the committee's decision, because there was a material consideration involved? Does the statement have weight in that sense, even if it does not have any legal weight in the sense that outline planning does in financial terms?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.