Orders of the Day — Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

House of Commons, 19 April 2004.

New Clause — Application Of Part 1

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Before I come to the substance of our disagreement with the other place, I wish to sound a note of recognition of and appreciation for their lordships' scrutiny of the Bill. As the House will be aware, the Bill was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny in the other place, where there was a total of 45 hours of debate. Almost 150 amendments were tabled, 50 of which were substantive and responded to serious concerns expressed at various stages in the Commons and the other place. I do not doubt that in many respects the Bill has emerged as a better measure as a result of their lordships' scrutiny, which is why the Government will signify their acceptance of a large number of Lords amendments today.

The amendments fall into 26 groups, and we propose to accept 19 of them, which is a fair-minded and reasonable response. A fair-minded and reasonable observer, however, would concede that the planning system that we inherited is prone to excessive delay and inefficiency in delivery. In our proposals to expand the opportunities for community involvement in the front-loading of the system we are making the planning system more democratic and efficient, but we are also determined to create a faster and more flexible planning system. Our disagreements with the Lords revolve around the issue of greater speed and flexibility, and those disagreements are at the heart of the first group of amendments.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), although his intervention is a little premature.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

If things are going to be more democratic, why cannot a local community that wants less development than the Secretary of State lays down have its will if it has voted for that in a free election for a council or regional assembly?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the regional planning system, which includes the identification of housing numbers, was introduced by the Administration of whom he was such a distinguished representative way back in 1990. Since 1990, regional planning bodies have indeed had those powers. Local authorities are required to pay attention to the guidance issued by regional planning bodies, and in many respects that is a material consideration in local planning decisions.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Surely, the Minister acknowledges the desirability of making those powers democratic. He argued for democracy, but how can it be democratic to give powers to regions without an assembly?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, in due course we shall come to the Opposition's interesting commitment to elected regional assemblies in connection with the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has raised one of the most contentious matters in the Bill—housing targets, which are completely different from those set under the existing system. Under the new system, housing targets will be handed down by the regional planning body, and must be implemented by the local authority, whether it likes it or not. Will the Minister admit that that is quite different from the present system?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Since the introduction of the method by his own Administration, housing targets have been identified by regional planning bodies. How else was the figure of 930,000 extra houses in London and the wider south-east identified under regional planning guidance note 9? Housing targets have always been in existence, and it is for local authorities to pay heed to them. Powers exist to influence local authorities in the delivery of those targets.

Having been fairly generous in giving way to official Opposition Members, I shall now address the amendments before us. They would prevent the reform of the regional planning system. The proposition arising from the amendments is that there should be regional spatial strategies and regional planning bodies only in areas where elected regional assemblies have been established. In such regions, the regional spatial strategy would have to have regard to the Secretary of State's spatial policies for the region. The amendments offer no solutions to the problems with our present system of plans. Instead, they would directly undermine our reforms.

We need strong regional planning. Regional planning policies that form part of the local development plan are needed to address the particular opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. Effective regional planning policy is vital to tackle historic regional disparities and respond to the challenges of the modern knowledge economy. We need strong local plans at a level where the community can engage with the process of plan making, and where proposals to develop particular sites can be properly debated.

It is vital that we make regional spatial strategies statutory, and therefore part of the local development plan. We cannot and 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 that is based around areas that are interdependent 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 regional or sub-regional level.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister said that older local plans should not be allowed to block more modern, up-to-the-minute regional plans. In many parts of the country, out-of-date Government regional plans are blocking up-to-date modern local plans. Does he not want the latest plan, regardless whether it is local or regional, to have preference?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There are plans at various stages of development, but a large proportion of local plans—I do not recall the exact proportion, but I know that we adumbrated the figure in Committee—are out of date. The Bill, when enacted, will provide the opportunity for regional plans to be developed. In a sense, they represent the first stage in the sequence that we seek to introduce. There is a clear chronology, which begins at the regional level of planning.

The regional planning process needs to be driven forward by bodies able to represent the region and take a strategic view. Regional chambers are best placed to fulfil that role. This is not a new departure. Responsibility for preparing regional strategies already rests with regional planning bodies, which since 1 April this year have been the regional chamber in each region. We are proposing that these arrangements should continue, provided the chamber is sufficiently inclusive.

We are not suddenly transferring powers from counties to regions. Under the existing system, county structure plans should be in line with and follow the strategic planning framework set in regional planning guidance. What we are doing is removing a filter that has slowed down the expression of strategic regional policies in local plans. We are clearing out a system that allows out-of-date structure plans to take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. Chambers are, of course, not directly elected, but they are representative of both of local authorities and wider stakeholders in the region. Local authority members represent their local authority on the regional planning body. Members from other stakeholder groups, such as business or the voluntary sector, will equally speak up for the interests that they represent. Through legislation and guidance, we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest can get involved in the regional planning process. There will be consultation, representations and, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, an examination in public conducted by an independent panel.

Ultimately, the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's document and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and the House. It is for that reason that the Bill specifies that the regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's policies for the region. The Secretary of State has regional planning policies and is accountable for them, now and under our proposed new regional planning system, because that is the best approach with our current governance arrangement. If an elected regional assembly were in place to play that role, the Secretary of State would not need any spatial policies for that region.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The Minister talks about public consultation, and we would all welcome that provided that what the public say is occasionally listened to and acted on, but is he aware that my constituents had to travel some 80 miles up to Northampton in order to give their views on the plans currently in force for south Bedfordshire? Does he think that that is an acceptable distance for local people to have to travel?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but a regional body must always operate from a particular location, which, in some circumstances, may be as far as 80 miles away, and I strongly suspect that in other parts of the country it could be even further away. I am sorry for the inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman's constituents—I mean that quite seriously—and I dare say that we will be hearing more about their concerns both today and at oral questions on Wednesday, but the important fact is that the opportunity to make the representation is there and that will be strengthened under the Bill in the context of amendments passed in the other place that we propose to accept.

The official Opposition, in their new-found passion for elected regional assemblies—I shall resist further comment at this stage—now apparently want us to delay our reforms until elected regional assemblies are in place, but that would simply delay putting into place the more effective planning system that we so urgently need. There are too many plans and too much confusion. Our reforms will produce a simpler, faster, more flexible system that creates plans and delivers policies at the right level. They are the right thing to do and they are the right thing to do now.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has made a slight error. He talks about the official Opposition being fans of regional assemblies. He is teasing them of course, but he would acknowledge that it was a Liberal Democrat amendment in the Lords, which the Conservatives, Cross-Benchers and, I believe, some Labour Members in the other place, voted for, that was the main thrust of the sunrise clause that prevents the powers from being transferred.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I certainly acknowledge that the Liberal Democrats have shown unusual consistency in this matter.

Our planning reforms will produce a simpler, more comprehensible system. The amendments will, I fear, just cause more confusion. Where elected regional assemblies are established it is right that they should take over responsibility for regional planning. But we should not conflate that with reforming the planning system. That is something that needs to happen now, and for that reason the Government resist the amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister, as ever, made a worthy effort to advance a weak case. The great constitutionalist Bagehot said of Peel that he was a first-rate man with a second-rate creed, and the Minister, rather like him, has struggled to convince this packed House. I see that Labour Members in particular have turned out in considerable numbers to support the Minister, probably mindful of the weakness of the case. He knows that the Bill is at best a wasted opportunity to reform a planning system too cumbersome and bureaucratic for developers, often too insensitive to environmental and aesthetic considerations, and too esoteric for almost everyone. At worst, it erodes the powers of local government and the influence of local people, and the amendments are an attempt by the Lords to improve an unacceptable Bill. That aspect of the Bill lies at the heart of the problem—the weakness of the Bill and the weakness of the Government's approach to local democracy. The proposals that the Lords seek to amend transfer vital planning powers to the regions without providing the necessary democratic accountability. If the Government have their way, regions will exercise planning functions that are currently in the hands of counties, irrespective of whether any corresponding elected authority exists.

In the course of our debates, many have suggested—frankly, I am among them—that it is extraordinary that the regions should exercise that additional power. I make no case from this Dispatch Box, either personally or on behalf of my party, for regional assemblies in any way, shape or form, but to transfer such powers to them without democratic legitimacy is undesirable, unpalatable and unacceptable. Yet that is what the Minister is prepared to endorse. With a bitter irony, he told us that his intention is to make the system more democratic. He said that local people should have a chance to make their representations at the most appropriate level; but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), his constituents—of whom he is a doughty defender—will have to make a round trip of 160 miles to make their concerns known. That is hardly a move towards making the system more people-friendly, more accountable and more democratic.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is likely that the south-west regional assembly will sit in Exeter. The distance to Exeter from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), which is in the northern part of the south-west region, is probably more than 200 miles, so somebody who wanted to make representations to that assembly would face a daily round trip of well over 400 miles. Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I try to travel as little as possible, because I have heard that it broadens the mind. Nevertheless, my constituents are in a similar position, because people in Lincolnshire will have to go to Nottingham. From south Lincolnshire, that represents a round trip of well over 100 miles—not quite as great as the distance that my hon. Friend describes, but on poor roads that are, I hasten to add, unimproved by this Labour Government.

Moreover, the people of rural Lincolnshire are, culturally speaking, a world apart from Nottingham. This is not simply a question of distance, but of where people are governed from. In my view, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I know that it is shared by you and by most Members of this House—political power is best exercised as close to people as possible to enable them to have an influence on local affairs. People want to have faith in, and to keep an eye on, those who govern them; they cannot achieve that effectively over a great distance.

So loathsome is this aspect of the Bill, and so appalling is its effect on people's proper entitlements and rightful expectations, that it has driven the Liberal Democrats into my arms. I try not to hold anything against Liberal Democrats, because I do not like to get that close, but it is fair to say that, in this place and in the Lords, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition have come together because we share a profound concern about these proposals. It is extraordinary that we face the prospect of powers being exercised by regions, some of which may have corresponding democratically elected chambers and some of which may not: inconsistency can be added to our charges against the Government. The Government are prepared to let matters proceed before they know what is going to happen in relation to regional assemblies. We may end up with no regional assemblies at all, yet these powers will still be vested at regional level and taken away from the local community.

Is it any wonder that the weight of considered opinion outside this place supports the Lords so strongly? I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations about his friends and colleagues in local government who oppose the proposals as strongly as my friends. The Local Government Association states:

"The government has been given a stark warning that in its hurry to streamline the planning system, it risks eroding democratic control over future developments . . . A key reform underlying the Planning Bill . . . is the removal of statutory planning powers from county councils."

The Planning Officers Society, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Civic Trust, the county councils network and the Council for the Protection of Rural England all acknowledge that to be unacceptable, believe that it is unlikely to improve the planning process and have firmly argued the case to the Government. Yet all have been ignored.

The argument is therefore about democratic legitimacy and local accountability but also good planning, because bad planning decisions will result from their being made outside the compass of local people and the orbit where local opinions and sensitivities can be made known. We are also considering the status of counties and planning officers. I agree with the comments of Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords. Baroness Hamwee has already been mentioned in our discussions today. She said that the measure would mean that

"county council resources and expertise will slowly wither away and . . . political commitment will decline as a core function"

and become,

"at best, an ancillary activity in future years."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 921.]

In joining together to table the amendments that we are debating, Lords of all parties and none—Cross Benchers were also involved in the move—recognised that there would be

"massive haemorrhaging of experienced planning staff from county councils".

An

"emasculated county council planning function"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 924.]

would therefore kick in and damage not only local accountability but local professionalism.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend quoted the Liberal peer, Lady Hamwee, who tabled amendment No. 1 in the other place. It is worth putting it on record that, for eight years, she was chairman of the London planning advisory committee, which was an unelected quango. Her occupation of that position means that we should take notice of her remarks.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As I said, I do not praise Liberal Democrats lightly. No wise or measured man does. However, on this occasion, they have got it right. Our objection to the measure is not born of any support for regional assemblies but of the Bill's leading to an indefensible position, unless the Government, at the eleventh hour, accept the Lords amendments. The unamended measure would mean that power rested with officers and would be removed from local communities. It may lead to the crazy result that some parts of the country, which have regional assemblies, have a route to influencing power through elected representatives whereas other parts have no such opportunity. That is ludicrous. The Minister knows that. He made the case with charm but unconvincingly. His heart was not in it because he knew that he was arguing a pretty weak case.

The Lords also properly recognised that the Bill greatly increases the power of the Secretary of State.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

If the Bill did not proceed, the existing regional planning structure remained in place and a regional assembly was accepted, does the hon. Gentleman believe that regional planning powers should pass to that elected assembly?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I hope, and will work to ensure, that regional assemblies are not elected. I look forward to the day when we can dustbin the whole regional agenda and a Conservative Government will reinforce their commitment to local democracy through supporting county councils and district councils. I look forward to the day when we can say good-bye once and for all to regionalism. So I do not want to take the fanciful road, down which the hon. Gentleman seeks to lead me, of looking at a future that I do not believe will come to pass.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall give way again, because as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the list of my many qualities, generosity is near the top.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is well known in the House for his generosity. Does he think that the regional planning system should be democratised at all?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There is nothing wrong with fishing for compliments, particularly when we fish successfully and get them. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my assessment of my strength of character.

Of course the system should be democratised; of course there is a problem with a system that I have described as esoteric, cumbersome and bureaucratic, and in which people do not feel that they have sufficient influence over planning decisions. I want the planning system to be reformed, and the Government have the opportunity to do just that. So, yes, there should be democratisation of the planning system and greater public involvement. There should be many of the provisions to which the Minister claims to aspire, but none of them is contained in the Bill. Nothing in the Government's proposals will make the system more democratic. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) were to follow his principles and have the courage of his convictions, he would vote with us and with the House of Lords, which has—not for the first time—stood up for the people against a Government who have lost touch with the people they govern.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the most likely outcome, which is that there will be no elected regional assemblies because he and I and our friends will be successful in persuading people that they would represent an unnecessary bureaucratic intrusion in their lives. Does he therefore agree that the House can tonight either vote for the Lords amendments, which would mean that we should not have these nasty regional planning bodies and their extra powers, or vote with the Government to establish the bodies, over which there would be no democratic rights or controls of any kind?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My right hon. Friend is as incisive as ever. He is right to suggest that we are not being offered the chance to vote tonight for regional powers or regional elections; we are instead being encouraged by the Minister to vote against Lords amendments that would temper the Bill and to vote for a transfer of power or, at the very least—if the Minister will not accept the argument that these measures represent a transfer of power—the maintenance of power at regional level with no guarantee of matching accountability through elected structures.

The Bill represents a challenge to proper local democracy. The hon. Member for Telford claims to be an advocate of good local democracy and, given his ability to judge character, he probably is such an advocate. I think that he is on the cusp of coming with us tonight and voting with those on the Opposition side of the House who really do support good, strong, healthy local democracy, and with those fellow travellers, the Liberal Democrats, who are going to vote with us. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) in his place, and I look forward to his speech, which I hope will be supportive of the arguments that have already been made.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I really should move on, but I would be delighted to give way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting a cogent and amusing case. Does he agree that the Government's case for this proposal being more democratic has been completely blown out of the water by the Minister's statement today, and that of his predecessor, that the regional spatial strategy belongs to the Secretary of State? If it belongs to the Secretary of State, how can it possibly be democratic?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Like a good prompter, my hon. Friend brings me to my next point. He is right; this is not simply about a lack of democratic legitimacy. It is not even just about the resulting bad planning decisions that are likely to emerge. The Lords have also properly recognised that the Bill greatly increases the power of the Secretary of State. They oppose that, as do we. It was recognised by my noble Friend, Lord Hanningfield, that the Government are seeking not only to suck power up from localities to regions, but to allow it, in his memorable phrase, to "leak" back to the Secretary of State.

When the Minister, to whose words I listen carefully, speaks of decisions being made at the "appropriate level" he does not mean the low level, as he described it, of communities; what he really means is his level—or perhaps not even his level, but a level above: a level to which he aspires, a level that he may expect one day to occupy so that he can exercise such powers. We say that not just the transfer of powers to the regions, but the further transfer of powers to the Secretary of State is unacceptable.

As I said at the outset, the Minister has made a charming case—he is always generous, and his delivery is always silky—but a wholly unconvincing one. The Government's position is as unconvincing as it is inconsistent. If this is new Labour democracy, I say: bring back old Labour. If this is new Labour democracy, let us bring back Bevan and Benn. This will mean local councillors with little power and local people with less. Communities will be emasculated, and planning professionals either overridden or ignored.

Better still, let us bring on a Conservative team—convinced about local democracy, committed to serving local communities and determined to deliver politics and planning on a human scale. My colleagues will support the Lords tonight, because the Lords speak for the people. The Government speak against the interests of the people. I look forward to seeing the whole House support us and our noble Friends.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Bill started off as a terrible muddle. When the Minister took over he cleared away a few of the muddles, and the Bill left its second Commons Committee stage much improved. The Lords have improved it further, but there is some way to go before it will be workable. If we cover that ground we shall have a Bill that will speed up the planning system, make it more accountable and democratic and better reflect people's needs. The Lords have made some excellent changes; if the Minister accepts them, he will find that he has a Bill that he can be proud of for the next decade—for I suspect that it will be a decade before the House gets round to amending the planning legislation again.

Lords amendment No. 1 attempts to let the Government live up to their own spin. "New localism" is a phrase that has been bandied around the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the past year or so. If this part of the Bill is new localism in practice, the Government have not quite got it. I understand the term to mean people making decisions at the lowest possible level and being accountable at the lowest possible level, not decisions being made at the centre on a one-size-fits-all basis.

Unlike the Conservatives, I am a believer in regional government. We are arriving at the same point from two entirely different directions, but I am a firm believer in regional government because it can bring power closer to the people by taking it away from Westminster, not by taking it up from councils. I would be much more reassured by the route that the Government have taken if they accepted the sunrise clause, which says "Yes, transfer the powers, but do so when there is an elected regional assembly." If they did that, I would not have an argument with them—well, I might have a little argument with them over which powers should be where, but in general I have no problem with a regional tier of planning provided that it is democratically accountable and elected, which next year it will not be in most regions. I hope that we win the three northern regions: I shall certainly campaign for that, and I believe that they will be won. However, that will not involve the southern and midlands regions, which will have unelected regional planning bodies rather than elected ones.

The Government admit that those unelected planning bodies will not even be completely indirectly elected. Their draft regulations say that funding for those bodies will be dependent on at least 30 per cent. of the membership with voting rights being other than from local authorities. The Government want to maximise the element of the regional planning bodies that is not elected—not even indirectly elected. It would be slightly more comforting if they said that 100 per cent. of those bodies were to be indirectly elected, but even that would not go far enough, as was alluded to by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee in the other place. She served for eight years on, and chaired, the London planning advisory committee, a completely indirectly elected regional planning body, and she set out a good case for why such bodies do not work particularly well in the interests of people in the area.

I urge the Government not to resist Lords amendment No. 1, because it seeks to ensure that there is no democratic deficit, and that when the powers are transferred—we can argue the detail of which powers should be at which level—there is democratic legitimacy. Surely the Minister wants to be remembered for having stood up for democratic legitimacy in the Bill.

Lords amendment No. 2 was a Conservative amendment, with a great deal of merit, which the Liberal Democrat peers supported. It would change the emphasis in the Bill in respect of what the regional planning bodies could do with national planning guidance. At the moment, clause 1 says that the RSS, the regional spatial strategy,

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

It will have no choice about that, but must set those policies out. The amendment, moved in the Lords by Lord Hanningfield, would change that "must set out" to "shall have regard to". That is about democracy, and about trusting an elected regional assembly to take the best decisions for its area, in the context of guidance from the Government. To say that the body must have regard to those policies is a much better way of doing that than to say that it "must set out" those policies.

I am not going to go down the route of saying that we must take all planning powers down to the lowest possible level and decide on housing numbers at street level, because we would not then build the houses that we need. It is easy rhetoric—I say this with all seriousness to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—to say that we should take all decisions down to the lowest possible level. The Conservatives did not do that when in government, and I suspect that if they were ever in government—unfortunately—again, they would still not do so. That is because some things have to be driven from national level, and some from regional level.

It would be unrealistic to leave district councils to set out housing numbers. Virtually no houses would be built, because people do not want houses built in their area. If we walk down the average street, we will find that people say, "Oh yes, we need affordable houses for people. It is a great shame that young families cannot afford to buy houses these days". However, if we respond, "What about the field behind you—why don't we put some affordable housing there?" they say, "No, no, we can't possibly put any there, it's beautiful countryside." There is always tension in the planning system, and it is foolish to pretend that there is not.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to go down a tributary, rather than sticking to the main thrust of the debate, but I am not sure that what he says is absolutely true. The truth of the matter is that people are worried about the scale and character of development. Part of the resistance to development of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes has come about because historically—at least in recent history—the scale and nature of development have not always been desirable. That is probably a fairer reflection of local opinion than that which he suggests.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman would do well to talk to local groups in, say, the south-east about where they would like to see houses built. Very few people want any houses anywhere near them; they want them somewhere else. That is part of the nature of local planning. I am not suggesting that everything could be done at a local plan level, which would be misleading the electorate. However, I do not believe that the Government should be giving themselves the power to dictate from the centre; that is the very one-size-fits-all route that, in other areas of government, they seem to be rejecting.

I support Lords amendment No. 2 because, to an extent, it would chop away the power of the Government while allowing them to set out guidance and recommendations. It would require the RSS to "have regard to" the Secretary of State's policy, and would remove the words "must set out". It would be a considerable step forward if the Government accepted the amendment. If the Bill remains as it is, there is a great danger that a Secretary of State could misuse his powers. I am not suggesting that this Secretary of State would dream of doing that, but if the powers remained, it is possible that we could have a centralised and imposed planning system.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Is not the hon. Gentleman belittling his constituents and those of other hon. Members somewhat? My constituents are very concerned about the supply of affordable housing locally and they will reflect that pressure in terms of the councillors they elect. Surely it is a question of providing local housing for local people across all the areas about which we are talking. Does that not contradict what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I do not think it does. As the Minister knows, I have been arguing for an increase in our housing numbers because we have too few. The local authority and local people are arguing for greater housing numbers because we cannot build the affordable housing that we need in the area. Potential changes to planning policy statement 7 would make the situation even worse by removing exception sites, but that is not a subject for this debate.

Even in my area, where there is strong demand for extra houses over and above our allocation—we want more; we complained about what the county and the regional system allocated to us—people will say that they do not want 20, 30 or 40 extra houses in a field near them. They will say that they want the houses somewhere else. That is a fact of life. None of us particularly wants extra houses built immediately around us.

Sometimes the tensions locally can be too great. I am not trying to be flippant, but in areas under immense housing pressure—unlike south Shropshire—such as parts of the south-east, I suspect that the extra affordable houses that are needed would not come at the rate that is needed if it were left to local authorities to provide them.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are concurrent with amendment No. 1 and would be necessary only if amendment No. 1 were accepted; they would delete what would be unnecessary words.

I hope that the Minister has thought about this matter, which is the biggest area of contention in the Bill. Debates are coming up on other issues, but it is this part of the Bill that has the potential to lead to ping-pong between the two Houses. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that he needs to look at this issue again. If he cannot accept our proposals, he needs at least to move some way towards our position, because not only politicians and local councillors but the public themselves think that the Bill involves an unacceptable transfer of powers from directly elected bodies to unelected ones. The public do not want to stomach that.

I know that the Minister cannot say with confidence that there will be elected regional assemblies throughout the country within the next 12 months. So for many years to come, regional planning bodies appointed by Secretary of State will make decisions on behalf of large parts of the country, and at least 30 per cent. of those bodies will not consist of directly elected councillors. The public find that unacceptable, and that is why we shall continue to support the amendment successfully moved by Liberal Democrat peers.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I rise to support the four Lords amendments before us, and I share the view of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that this issue is crucial. The Government claim that they are devolving power downwards, but part 1 of the Bill does the opposite by transferring power upwards. It enables the structural plans made at county level to be made at regional level.

The Minister says that there are excessive delays in the current town and country planning system—a point to which I shall return briefly—but it is my fundamental belief that those delays are mainly caused not by its structure, but by its operation. Of course, there is a vast difference between a directly elected body and an indirectly elected one. No regional spatial strategy should be left to unelected—and perhaps unknown—people, who will take decisions that affect everybody in a given authority. That will sever the link between the elected and the overall structural plan for the future.

We should all be worried about the fact that even today, many people feel disaffected and alienated from the planning system: they feel that they have no part to play in taking decisions. It pains me to say so, but I still get far too many letters from constituents who believe that there is corruption or fraud in the planning system. I am sure that there is not, although of course, there are bad apples in every basket, and perhaps it happens on one or two occasions. However, handing over powers to unelected regional bodies—that is what we are talking about—will in no way improve the public's recognition of the planning system as above board and fair.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend is a great expert on these matters and as ever, he is making a very valuable contribution to our deliberations, but has he considered the fact that many of the misapprehensions about the planning system arise because it is regarded as esoteric and outside the scope of many who come into contact with it? If it also becomes distant, which is precisely the Bill's effect, that problem will be exacerbated, not eased.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My hon. Friend puts it perfectly, and I envy him his eloquence in forcing home the point that I am trying to make.

If the Bill goes through, it will scale down the importance of local plans, which I think are a vital part of our planning system. They will not be replaced, but they will lose their influence. If this part of the Bill is enacted, local plans will have to have regard to the regional spatial strategy, but the Bill also says that the RSS must set out the Government's policy. It is as simple as that—there is a direct link to the views of the Secretary of State.

Unlike the hon. Member for Ludlow, I am against regional assemblies per se. They will only bring about yet another tier of government, and we have quite enough tiers. Ministers may say that we are the odd ones out in Europe and that most other countries have directly elected regional bodies, but we are a densely populated island, and it is not as if there were 3,000 miles between Berwick and Cornwall. We do not need regional authorities. My seat is in the Greater London area, and it is true that I have a regional authority, but I regret that I do, because I do not think that it is needed.

Unless we radically changed the whole local authority structure for our capital city, a regional authority for London would probably have to extend as far as Brighton to the south, Bath or Bristol to the west, Northampton or wherever to the north, and Southend to the east. What cannot or should not properly be decided by counties in the south-east or by London boroughs should in fact be decided by the Government, because of the huge conglomeration that is the metropolis of the greatest city in the world.

If regional bodies come about, they will be weak; they will have little to do; they will be relatively expensive—anybody who doubts that should be aware that the first four years of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly have meant an increase in Londoners' precept of 96 per cent.; and they will empire-build, trying to take further powers from the counties and district councils.

Of course, planning applications are still dealt with by district councils, or in London by the 32 boroughs, but any significant application is referred up and is therefore not determined at the local level of administration. The Minister in the Lords said that county boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. If they do not, regional boundaries will not do so either. I do not believe that a case can be made for taking planning powers from the counties, which I believe were the one angle of local government that people could really identify with until a Conservative Government, I regret to say, introduced new counties that bore no relation to the historical background of the people of our country.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has dealt with the Minister's rather strange point—I have a great regard for the Minister, but I agree with my hon. Friend that he has been speaking valiantly on a very bad case—in saying that these structure plans are just as likely to be up to date as any regional plan. In any case, not all structure plans are out of date. They are, by their very nature, brought up to date and revised.

The prestigious Town and Country Planning Association supports the Lords amendments. I do not believe that the Government's proposals, particularly in part 1 of the Bill, are creating a simpler, fairer or faster system. It will not be simpler because there will be an additional layer of government; it will not be fairer because power is being transferred upwards; and it will certainly not be faster because the extra layer will bring about even greater conflict between the county or district level and the new regional level.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I support the Lords amendments and want to speak out against more bureaucratic control of the planning system at the regional level.

I was intrigued by the Minister's failure to respond to my earlier point. He tried to change the subject by saying that I had once supported a Government who had also allowed a Secretary of State to provide some guidance and to interfere in planning through unelected regional bodies and our elected councils. That is quite right, but the Minister should also know that I have always been against that system and have fought many battles against it on behalf of my constituents. I am sad that the Minister does not seem inclined to take advantage of the reformed legislation passing through the House to introduce more democracy into our planning system.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), I believe that there are already too many tiers of government. Like him, I would like to shed a tier or two of this country's government and get by with rather less of it. The most obvious area to remove is that of artificial regional government—regions that mean little or nothing to most of the people dragooned into them, and which are too extensive geographically. My hon. Friends have pointed out the long distances that people would have to travel to make representations in person. Regions also create tensions between the great cities and counties lumped together within them, as they jostle for position and try to have their interests properly represented.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

The right hon. Gentleman's analysis intrigues me. Does he believe that the whole regional planning guidance system should be scrapped and therefore that counties should interact directly with the Secretary of State, with no role for regional spatial analysis at all?

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that I see no need for regional planning tiers in England. I believe that it would be much better if counties or unitary authorities and boroughs put forward their proposals and engaged in dialogue with the Secretary of State on important issues of national significance. We may also need a system that provides incentives to counties and districts to allow certain quantities of development. Such incentives could be built in to provide some balance in the system, so that communities could see some of the advantages of accepting more development, while retaining the ultimate right or power to forgo those advantages and opt for less development than a Secretary of State might wish them to have. I do not accept the view that without draconian powers from the centre and from the regions, nothing would ever get built.

We have already heard that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has been urging his local authority and the national system to build more. Several hon. Members have voiced similar opinions in previous debates on planning matters—they want more development in their constituencies, and that is often endorsed by their local elected authorities. That can be achieved through an electoral process and if a Secretary of State felt that the balance was wrong, he could, under my model, increase the incentives—perhaps financial incentives, allowing authorities to keep rather more of the tax revenue that would flow from greater development or allowing them to keep or develop the grants or extra money that comes through developer agreements—in return for the acceptance of further development. That would create a balance where both judgment and democratic rights were possible.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I support my right hon. Friend on that point. In my experience, local people rarely oppose the building of anything lovely or useful; they oppose building that is out of scale or out of character with their community. As he says, people do not oppose development per se, but they usually oppose unsuitable development.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

That is my view. Having been a dweller both in London and in Berkshire, I know that if development proposals are made in my area in London, I often think that they are an enhancement, particularly if they will improve or replace old derelict buildings, or sites that have not been properly used or have fallen into disuse.

I am often in favour of an intensification of use, because I accept that I am living in a city where there are lots of facilities. However, if I am considering a proposal for a village in my Berkshire constituency that has already faced more development than it would like as a result of regional guidance in the past, I am often sympathetic to the case made by the parish and the district unitary authority that a limit should be put on development—particularly in the light of the Government's failure to provide more trains, boats, planes and roads for the transport links, and their failure to expand the hospital and school systems sufficiently, or rapidly enough, to accommodate the planned development that regional guidance may be urging, or forcing, on reluctant local communities and local authorities. As my hon. Friend implied, we need to consider the circumstances on the ground in each city, town, district, parish and village. Surely that is an argument for more democracy in our planning process, and more of it being returned to local communities through their elected representatives, rather than for more powers being taken away to the centre.

I am happy to speak out in praise of the nimbys. I remember being interviewed on that subject and explaining the kind of view that I am now setting forth about how the planning process could be reformed, with more local democracy, but also with reasonable amounts of development in the right places being encouraged and permitted. The interviewer thought that he had come to his clinching point when he turned to me and said, "But then, Mr. Redwood, you must be a nimby." I astounded him by replying, "But of course—and I suspect that you are too."

Indeed, I suspect that most Members of the House of Commons, too, are secret nimbys. We all have different thresholds for our nimbyism, but I suspect that even most Labour Members, who are about to vote against people's right to defend their local communities from overdevelopment, would, if under pressure themselves, turn out to be nimbys when pushed in the wrong direction. I wonder how many Labour Members would like an abattoir next door to them. I wonder how many of them would say, "How wonderful!" if a fireworks factory were to be sited next to their house. I wonder how many of them would welcome one of the asylum camps that the Government have a passion for and wish to dot around Conservative areas. I suspect that we would find that there was quite a lot of nimbyism in Labour then—and if there were not, Labour Members would not be speaking up for their many constituents who often rightly wish to defend their rural views, their quiet residential streets, their local amenity, or the beauty of their local parks and green spaces.

What we want from the Bill, and what the central Lords amendment is about, is a system that allows local communities to express their views on the scale, pace and nature of development, and then to have some chance of those being reflected in the underlying reality. I am not saying that people should have the absolute right to decide in each case. There are, of course, occasions when national issues and considerations have to be taken into account, and should properly be put before this House and be debated and reflected on through the right kind of procedure. There will also be occasions when matters need to be referred from the local community to the Secretary of State for adjudication. However, we do not want a new regional planning tyranny cemented in the concrete of this statute, unamended by their lordships' amendment.

I like the wit and wisdom of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance—an unusual alliance, and not one that I would normally encourage. The wit and wisdom lies in the fact that the Lib Dems will dream on, thinking that the amendment from their lordships' House would mean elected regional assemblies having an influence over the planning process, whereas we Conservatives know that it should be an easy task for us to see off the threat of regional assemblies—an unnecessary and expensive level of government that the Government seek to impose. The amendment would mean an end to the statutory regional interference that the Government have in mind under the Bill if it is not amended as their lordships suggest.

I urge all those who wish their local communities to have a voice, all those who believe that a balance needs to be struck between the understandable wish to defend what we have and the need for growth and development and new ideas, and all those who do not believe in too much bureaucratic control and interference from a high level, to understand the importance of backing their lordships' amendment, and I urge them to join us in the Lobby.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I, too, support the amendment. I speak on behalf of an area in which the Government intend to build possibly 51,000 extra houses, in spite of the fact that there are 2,000 people on my council's housing waiting list and that plans are already in place to build 7,000 extra houses to meet local housing need. I point out to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that sensible, proper plans had already been put in place in my area by my district council to meet local housing need.

My constituents are concerned that there will be a massive expansion of housing not to house local people or even to house people in local jobs but to bring people into the area who will probably commute some 35 or 40 miles to work somewhere else. That does not make sense for those new residents, and it does not make sense for my part of Bedfordshire. It is that lack of local democracy—the democratic deficit—that the amendments go some way to remedying and that my constituents have raised with me time and again. [Interruption.] In case the Minister or anyone else thinks that this is a personal ego trip from some green field-loving, nimby, Conservative, I should say that I have presented a petition to the House on this matter, particularly on the point of local democracy, which was signed by 17,000 constituents, which is only about 1,700 fewer than voted for me to become a Member of Parliament. When I speak on their behalf, I know that I do so with significant local support from all parties. Leading Labour and Liberal councillors back what I am saying, as do local representatives and community bodies with no political interest. We are not nimbys. We want to meet local demand, but the scale, nature and lack of sustainability of the Government's current plans cause us great concern.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

I represent a new town. There was consensus from the end of the second world war, under all Governments, that we should, through the planning system, build new housing in certain local areas to meet major regional and national demand. The new towns were one of those strategies. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is perfectly reasonable in a coherent regional planning structure to require areas to consider large-scale housing development? That happens to be occurring in his area. In my area, there was originally large-scale opposition to the new town of Telford, but it has turned out to be an absolute success as far as most people are concerned in Shropshire and the wider west midlands.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman persuasively puts forward one way to solve the nation's current housing problems, which I accept are serious. He is absolutely right to say that we have to find radical solutions. There are alternatives, however. Even in London and the south-east there are around 150,000 empty properties. It is possible to develop existing communities organically so that there is some proper sense of community. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of developments on the edge of Glasgow, such as the Easterhouse estates, he will know that many people say that putting down vast numbers of houses on the outside of towns without proper community infrastructure has not worked as there is no proper sense of community. We need to think more seriously about that.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend will agree that there is a massive difference between what is being proposed for his part of the world and the new towns, which were devised and implemented as self-sustaining communities. What is being proposed in his part of Bedfordshire is an influx of people who will not be sustained locally and who will travel to work, increasing wage inflation and environmental pollution and doing untold damage. They will not be building the sort of communities that we all want to develop and thrive.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is at the heart of my constituents' objections to current housing proposals for south Bedfordshire, which the four amendments would go some way to addressing.

I have put all these points to the Minister before, in an Adjournment debate, and I will continue to raise them on behalf of my constituents. It seems that I am the only elected person to whom my constituents can turn on these matters, because power has been taken out of my local planning authority's hands. I shall quote briefly from a letter and an article that the Chiltern Society recently sent me. This local society looks after environmental and planning issues in the area and has no party political stance. Its chairman, Mr. Robin Rowland, wrote to me with a magazine last month:

"If you have time only to read just one article, can I ask you in the interests of democracy to read the article on page 14 by Helen Whitmore. This epitomises the current almost total disregard for local community views. It can not be right to empower Central Government and unelected Regional bodies this way. I am personally very much a non-political person as is the Chiltern Society, but it would be very wrong for us not to express our views strongly on this subject. I hope you will also feel it necessary to raise awareness on this matter."

I certainly do feel the need to raise awareness of it.

I should like also to quote from the magazine concerned, because it is relevant to the four amendments that we are discussing. In the excellent article, my constituent Helen Whitmore, who is planning field officer in south Bedfordshire for the Chiltern Society, wrote of her considerable concern that the examination in public process, which is all that we have been offered, is inadequate, and she comments:

"At the Preliminary meeting to discuss the draft matters, a Government officer made it quite clear that it was not the job of the EiP to question Government Policy on growth in the South-East of England. We're stuck with it, like it or lump it.

This is not democracy. All we in South Bedfordshire are to enjoy out of this thoroughly undemocratic process is the overwhelming of our communities by thousands upon thousands of people for the benefit of"

people from outside our area,

"but with little or no opportunity to even temper"

the proposals put forward

"never mind rein it back to realistic . . . requirements . . . What appears to be happening to the planning system in this country with the stealth surrounding the destruction of true public involvement deeply frightens me. In relation to the devastation facing communities in South Bedfordshire, the process of an Examination-in-Public is inadequate, undemocratic and disempowering. It is a process which no longer allows individuals, local groups or for that matter voluntary organisations such as the Chiltern Society to put their case except in writing, unless specifically invited by the Examination Panel, nor to have convenient access to the debates. It is a disgrace."

So writes a thoroughly respectable local organisation of excellent people whose members are people of all political parties and none, but who are concerned for the good of our area.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the examination in public at Northampton is considering major housing proposals for his constituency and mine without any rights for local amenity groups or parish councils to make their views known? Is he aware that, according the Aylesbury Vale district council, the Government office for the south-east proposes to bring forward from the second half of the communities plan yet more housing for the first half of the plan? The Government office will not even accept any responsibility for telling local people that that is what it plans to do.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with the lucidity that we have come to expect from him. He is right, and similar affronts to the feelings and needs of local people occur in every area we look at. We are all concerned about the low turnouts in local elections, but many of my constituents ask why they should bother to vote in local elections again if those who are elected have no power over some of the most significant issues that affect our area most deeply. The Government try to assume the mantle of new localism, but that is far from the truth.

Concern has been expressed from different standpoints by my hon. Friends and myself today, but the theme of lack of concern for local areas is the same. More people come to see me about housing than about any other issue, and I am concerned that the housing needs of my constituents should be fully and adequately met. All that I ask is that other areas act as responsibly as my area is acting, and that housing supply is spread across London and the south-east, where it is needed, instead of being rammed into a few areas—as currently proposed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. As such, I have practised within the planning system. I shall speak briefly so that the Minister has an opportunity to reply to some of the points that have been made ably by my hon. Friends.

My principal concern is the motion to disagree to Lords amendment No. 1, which says that the provisions on the regional planning body and the regional spatial strategy

"shall apply only if an elected assembly for the region has been established."

That amendment would make a bad Bill marginally better. The Bill will be a testimonial to the Minister and I call it Hill's Bill. The problem is that its insidious effects will not be felt until long after he has ceased to hold his present position. Only then will the country reap the problems that the Bill will sow.

The Bill has two fundamental disadvantages. First, it will do nothing to improve the democratic accountability of the planning system and, secondly, it will not speed up the planning system. In fact, it will do the reverse in both cases. I do not know how anyone, least of all the Minister, could believe that placing planning control under a regional system will improve matters. I have already demonstrated how my constituents will have to travel many hundreds of miles to make representations. Even if my constituents could discover the identities of the indirectly elected representatives, they would have great difficulty making representations about Gloucestershire matters to people living in Dorset or Cornwall. I do not know how my constituents would realistically be able to take part in a regional planning system.

The regional planning system is not democratic. The Minister even said today that the regional spatial strategy would be the property of the Secretary of State. The Minister's predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said that it would be the creature of the Secretary of State. If the RSS is the creature of the Secretary of State, how can it possibly be democratic for local people? The system would be hugely centralised, not democratic.

The second issue is whether the Bill will speed up the planning system. Any developer will confirm that the reason we are building the lowest number of houses a year in peacetime since 1927 is the length of time that it takes to get planning permission for a residential development of any size. In most cases, it takes at least five years. We desperately need to speed up the planning system. The Government could speed up the existing system by ensuring that the structure plans and local plans were drawn up more frequently. That would also mean that people would feel more involved in the system. At present, when a controversial planning application is made, the people who would live next door to it often find out that it was contained in the structure plan or local plan that was drawn up four or five years ago and has been long forgotten, except by those experienced in the planning system. I have tabled a written question to the Deputy Prime Minister on that very point—it is No. 39 in the list of notice of questions in the Order Paper today. I have also asked about the strategic role of county councils, which are a vital part of the planning system and have been for 10 centuries. Shire counties have been in existence since the Norman conquest, but this vandalising Government propose to discard all the knowledge and experience of county councils.

The Bill will not speed up the planning system. I have also tabled a question—No. 36, as listed on the Order Paper—about the number of planning officers. The lack of qualified planning officers is one reason for the slowness of the system. Does the Minister think that he will get more qualified planning officers by tearing up the county council system? If he does, he is living in a different country.

I recognise that time is running out, so I shall conclude my remarks. This is a bad Bill and the effects of which will be felt for years to come, until a future Government rip it up and start again. It will mean a paradise for lawyers, with case after case to establish the law. The Bill will greatly slow down the planning system and alienate people from the democratic process, at local, district and county council level. We should not, therefore, be surprised when we see lower and lower turnouts at elections. It will all be the Government's fault.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

With permission, I shall reply to the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his generosity in abbreviating his speech to allow me to respond briefly to the debate. I wish to scotch a couple of canards that have been heard today. No hon. Member in my experience has ever done more to try to shore up a tiny majority than the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and he expressed outrage about the issue of distance in cases of examination in public, as did the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). However, under the Conservatives, there was no examination in public whatever: the Government simply imposed policy without debate. If it is any reassurance to the hon. Gentlemen, I can tell them that in future there will be sub-regional sessions under the public examination arrangements if the panel deems them appropriate. That should serve to reduce the distance that people have to travel.

We have heard a lot of hot air and some breathtaking claims, perhaps the most breathtaking of which was the new Tory doctrine that power should be as close to the people as possible, as proposed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). One thinks of the more than 50 Acts of Parliament in those 18 wasted years of Tory rule which in various ways removed power from local authorities and placed it in the hands of central Government. In the presence of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), we remember the Conservatives' bitter opposition to any form of devolution, including the creation of a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament. Indeed, they far preferred to administer those nations and regions from a distance of hundreds of miles.

It is interesting that there was no response to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on whether he would support regional spatial strategies even if they were produced by elected regional assemblies. The stuff that we have heard could be described as the Jenkins hypothesis of power to local people. It is hot air. The Conservative party remains, as ever, the party of state power and centralisation.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) made a sensible contribution on the need to have a balance between national, regional and local interests. He gave a franker recognition of the problems of nimbyism—the old localism, as we might call it—than we heard from the Conservatives, although the right hon. Member for Wokingham did give a positive espousal of nimbyism. The fact of the matter is, however, that in practice the hon. Member for Ludlow is supporting a denial of the need for a regional dimension in planning. The amendments would eliminate regional planning bodies altogether unless there is an elected regional assembly. That would turn the clock back to a situation prior to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, introduced by the Conservatives.

We have heard a great deal from the official Opposition about the weakening of local plans, but under the existing system, introduced by the Conservative Government, the lower tier development plan must have regard to regional planning guidance. Furthermore, it was the Conservative Government who directed local planning authorities, in particular county councils, to implement the regional planning guidance housing figures.

There has been much hot air about democracy, but we have cause to be anxious that that is a bluff, designed to destroy the regional dimension in planning altogether. The first group of amendments would ensure that there was no regional planning body unless there was an elected regional assembly, but even if there were a regional planning body because there was an elected regional assembly, the second group of amendments, which we have not had the opportunity to debate, would mean that it still fell to the county councils to define the contents of the regional spatial strategy through sub-regional plans. A na-ve observer might think that even with an elected regional assembly, there is not much point in having a regional spatial strategy. That is the bottom line in the Conservative party's representations.

We heard much from the hon. Member for Ludlow on amendment No. 2—

Clause 1 — Regional Spatial Strategy

Clause 2 — Regional Planning Bodies

Clause 22 — Adoption Of Local Development Documents

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 22 and 23 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The Government have been clear from the outset that one of the key elements of our planning reforms is for the recommendations of the independent inspector, following an independent examination, to be the final stage in the preparation of a development plan document. The amendments intend to retain the status quo, which is unacceptable for the following reasons.

Taken together, amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 would remove the important innovation of binding inspectors' reports on development plan documents at the local level. At the same time, amendment No. 21 would also muddle up the provisions for adopting local development documents that are not development plan documents, and which are known as supplementary planning documents. The amendment would result in local authorities having to take account of the inspectors' recommendations on a supplementary planning document even though there is no independent examination of those documents.

Binding reports form a crucial foundation in the proposed local planning system, and a number of key features support that function. First, there is the concept of front loading. That means that the local planning authority will reach decisions on key matters early in the plan making process. The local planning authority will start by identifying and taking the community's views and interested parties' ideas on all the potential options, and then deciding what it thinks is best for its area.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Will the Minister give one or two illustrative examples of where things went wrong under the existing process?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In some cases the existing process has led to the late introduction of elements in local plans, characteristically the late introduction of new proposals for developers, and on some occasions the introduction of unpopular proposals for development put forward by local authorities. It is precisely to obviate such risks and what might be described as a form of abuse of the existing system that we are introducing our present proposals for the powerful front loading of the system for new and stronger elements of community involvement. It should be borne in mind throughout the process that the inspector is all the time responding to various representations and inputs that emerge at various stages of the local planning process. In many respects the proposed system offers far more safeguards to local people in terms of what is likely to appear in the plan than the existing system.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

There is the question of what happens while inspectors hear what people have to say and there is the question of what happens afterwards. My local authorities, both at district and county level, have asked what would happen under the Government's proposals—unless they accept the purpose of some of the Lords amendments—were the inspector to make a plain mistake. Leaving aside the fact that the Minister has not dealt with what would happen after an inspector's report, what would happen if the inspector made a mistake? How could it be put right?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of concern that has also been taken up elsewhere and on which I think that I can reassure him. The local planning authority already sees the inspector's draft report and can point out factual errors. That situation exists now and we propose that it should continue under the present proposals. I hope that that serves to some degree to reassure the hon. Gentleman.

I was saying that it is the role of the local planning authority to take soundings, to consult local communities and to hear the views of interested parties on all the potential options and then to decide what it thinks is best for its own area. The job of the local planning authority is to devise policies and proposals for the development plan document for its area, involving its community fully in the process. Representations made to the authority on its preferred options will be considered by it. I emphasise that no inspector is involved at this stage and it is from this consideration that the authority will prepare its development plan document to submit for independent examination.

We believe that the local authority will be well placed to do this with the procedures that we are introducing to ensure early debate and decisions. There will be a strong disincentive for anyone to put off raising controversial proposals in the hope that they have a better chance of succeeding if sprung on people at a late stage, whether that is a developer or the authority wishing to avoid coming to a difficult or potentially unpopular decision without involving the community.

Secondly, the investment by the community and others in making representations on a development plan document, and participating in the independent examination, will now always be worth while. No longer will the community and others face the entirely unjustifiable position where all their input is taken forward through the inspector's recommendations, but then ignored by the authority, which may decide to do something completely different. That would undermine our intention to give communities a greater say in plan making and to secure their buy-in.

Finally, the inspector's job is to determine whether a development plan document satisfies the legal requirements on its preparation and whether it is sound. The inspector's starting point will be that the development plan document that the authority has submitted is sound unless evidence proves otherwise.

Anyone seeking a substantive change to a development plan document will need to show that the document is unsound and that the change will render it sound. That is also a requirement of the inspector. I emphasise again that any changes that the inspector recommends will not simply reflect his or her views, rather than those of the local authority, but will be changes that are needed to achieve a sound plan that is tested against the criteria for soundness that it has to meet. If, as a result of the inspector's consideration of soundness, he or she believes that the development plan document should be changed significantly—for example, as a result of insufficient evidence—that could happen only if the examination is reconvened or if the development plan document is referred back to the local planning authority for further consideration.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Is the Minister entirely confident that inspectors, who on the whole do a very good job, always manage to interpret planning guidance correctly? In some cases, the local authority's interpretation of Government and regional planning guidance has differed from that of the inspector, and I think that the Minister would have been inclined to agree with the local authority. Is he confident that the inspector is always right?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

First, I have a great deal of confidence in the inspectorate. My observational experience, both as a citizen and as a Minister, is that the quality of the work produced by the inspectorate is, by and large, very impressive.

Secondly, the proposals, especially on the concept of soundness, are not being unleashed on inspectors without preparation. Indeed, I recently attended a conference of the inspectorate where a great deal of practical training on the provisions of the Bill was already taking place. I am reasonably confident that there will be a high level of preparation for and understanding of the contents and definitions of the Bill.

Finally, if the inspector gets it wrong, the local authority has other recourses with which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is familiar. The process incorporates a large number of safeguards and fail-safes.

If there is still insufficient evidence for the inspector to recommend a change that he or she thinks should be made to a development plan document, the inspector will not be able to recommend that change in his or her report. If that happens, the inspector will only be able to advise the authority of his or her view that it should revise its development plan document or prepare a fresh one to take the matter forward. Those principles will be set out clearly in the final version of planning policy statement 12.

As we have said on many previous occasions, binding inspectors' reports are a key mechanism for speeding up the plan-making system, because the modifications stage, which usually takes six months or more, will no longer be needed. Speeding up the process is vital if our communities are to have the up-to-date plans that they and their areas need.

I fear that the amendments are in direct contradiction to our policy on this issue, and we cannot agree to them.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I start by declaring my interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, as a director of a family property company with interests in the building industry.

I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, but he has not yet convinced me that the Government are right on this issue. One of the disadvantages of coming late to a debate is that one has to go back through the papers to find out about the Government's intentions. I want to try to get the architecture right in terms of understanding where the binding inspectors' reports fit in. Initially, a national spatial plan strategy will send directions to the regional spatial strategies—although the Minister said earlier that that would differ according to whether there was an elected assembly or a non-elected regional planning body—and that will set the local development frameworks. Then, the local authority has to produce its local development scheme, to come into force by the end of 2004, which lists all the documents to be prepared and the timetable for doing so. The authority also has to produce a statement of community involvement so that the public feels confident that they can be involved in the whole process.

That eventually leads to the preparation of local development documents, including maps and action plans for what is to happen in the locality. There is also the option of the supplementary planning documents that the Minister mentioned, which do not have to undergo independent examination. At that point, the local authority has to produce its local development plan documents, with some degree of latitude as to the degree of detail. Community involvement will be an important part of that. At the end of the process, an inspector has to look at the local development documents.

In essence, the Government want to introduce what Lord Rooker called

"the important innovation of binding inspectors' reports on development plan documents."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 March 2004; Vol. 1940, c. 454.]

The philosophy of the measure is much more top down than bottom up. An inspector will have the ability substantially to alter documents produced by the local authority that have gone through the local consultation process.

There is widespread concern about how the system will operate. The Local Government Association fears that the proposals will

"undermine local democracy, accountability, and the freedoms and flexibilities the government says it wants to grant local government in order to make localism a reality."

It says:

"There will be no opportunity for local authorities to correct errors of fact and misinterpretation which creep into many an inspector's report but which can be ironed out in the current system without fuss.

There could be significant implications for parts of the plan not actually formally under public examination and on which the local authority will not have had chance to make representations.

Local authorities are also likely to find themselves in a difficult position if they unable to challenge the Inspector's decisions, which may prove to be contrary to national and regional planning guidance or not adequately reflect local circumstances.

There will be wider implications. The inspector's report will have a direct impact on Community strategies and other local strategies outside planning and the local authority will have no recourse to challenge the inspector's recommendations if they are contrary to the objectives of the community strategy."

It gives an example of how things could go wrong:

"In Birmingham, the Local Planning Inspector recently recommended that the City Council's Unitary Development Plan should remove key employment sites from the plan even though this was contrary to both current and emerging regional planning guidance for the area. Such an outcome would have significant implications for local planning authorities under the new system as there do not appear to be safeguards to prevent this happening and local authorities would not be in a position to challenge the Inspector's decision. The processes for rectifying issues of this kind are likely to be messy and convoluted."

As the Minister said, the only option that will be left open to local authorities is judicial review, but many authorities—certainly in Poole—would have to consider the costs involved in that before trying to challenge what an inspector wants to do.

Although I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow that planning inspectors are generally competent and good at what they do, mistakes are made, and many reports contain factual errors. By making that element of the process binding, the Government are giving it an importance within the planning architecture that could significantly change what local development documents are intended to be. The Government should consider the Lords amendments as a great help because leaving the final say to local authorities would be consistent with what all parties want—more power for local authorities. The amendments would be the most effective method of ensuring that the right decisions were made at the end of the process. A local authority could consider an inspector's decision and amend its plan accordingly if it believed that the inspector had a good point.

It has been said in the debate that an inspector could not simply implement his views but would have to examine the whole process. He would have to consider the public consultation, ascertain what issues had been raised and make amendments on that basis. However, as we all know, issues are raised in local plans and consultations that have strong proponents for and against them. Controversial decisions could ensue through the Government's making that part of the process binding. In another place, Lord Rooker clearly stated that the Government's intention was to speed up the planning process and that the proposal was part of that. Yet we are considering the last part of the process and it is unlikely that the provision would speed it up. If the consequence of speeding up the process is diminishing local democracy and perhaps making it more difficult to rectify mistakes—we all know that mistakes are made—the Government may come to regret it.

We are considering complex planning architecture, with all sorts of plans and supplements popping out. I am beginning to wonder whether we shall end up with a speedier process. However, the top-down philosophy that the Government appear to be implementing in many of their planning proposals, whereby an inspector can insist on changes and judicial review is the only avenue available to a local authority that has been through all the processes and taken account of all public anxieties and representations, is unacceptable. The Government should listen carefully to what the Lords and Members of the House of Commons are saying about an issue that is important to many of our constituents.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We are discussing one of the main contentious subjects in the Bill. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) did hon. Members a great favour when he asked the Minister to give examples of problems with the current system. The Minister had some difficulty in dealing with that. Under the new scheme, a local development plan will become a series of local development documents. The Minister knows that I support the new scheme. Under the current system, local authorities do not often reverse the inspector's decisions, for the wrong reasons.

However, let me give an example, provided by the Local Government Association, of a local authority using its power to reverse an inspector's decision about a local plan. The local authority is Birmingham, which was Labour led when the decision was reversed. Labour councillors voted for a plan, which the inspector changed. I understand that the planning inspector recently recommended that Birmingham city council's unitary development plan should remove key employment sites from the plan, even though that was contrary to current and emerging regional planning guidance for the area. Such an outcome would have significant implications for the new system.

Ninety-nine per cent. of the time, inspectors get it right but nobody is perfect and they can make mistakes. Correcting them through judicial review is expensive. Perhaps Birmingham might be able to spread the costs because it is the biggest local authority in the country, and I believe has a budget of more than £1 billion. However, most small shire districts would not contemplate resorting to judicial review against the Secretary of State—the inspector acts in the Secretary of State's name. They could not consider that route for financial reasons.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, in another place, the Government ensured that four clauses were added so that Ministers could correct mistakes that they or planning inspectors made about planning decisions. It is odd that we are holding the current discussion on more major issues when the Government have given themselves gold-plated protection for minor slips.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. All we are requesting for local authorities is a little—only an inch—of the power that the Secretary of State likes to preserve for himself. Let us consider circumstances in which the new local development documents go through all the stages and an inspector makes a ruling that is clearly against the wishes of the local authority, the local people and possibly even the Minister in whose name the inspector acts. That could undermine local democracy and accountability at the level at which it should be built into the planning system.

I want a planning system that works. The move to a series of local development documents rather than a local plan will reduce conflict because under the current system, the whole plan has to be called in if the inspector wants to make an objection. I suspect that many of the documents in isolation will not cause the same controversy as a whole plan. There should therefore be fewer public inquiries, and I welcome that.

However, I am worried that the inspectors might not get it right, and I shall provide an example. The Minister cannot come back at me and will simply go all quasi-judicial. I know he will do that, so he does not need to make the excuse later. Both my local authorities are currently preparing their local plans. They are at different stages and, although they have taken a little longer than the five years that they are supposed to take, they are both preparing them.

South Shropshire's plan is currently at inspector's report stage. As hon. Members who have followed the progress of the Bill know, South Shropshire has an innovative affordable housing policy. The Minister knows about it because I have sent him a copy and he expressed some interest in it. It is probably one of the most radical policies in the country. It suggests that, on sites of two or more houses, 50 per cent. should be affordable. The policy is included in the local plan. The local authority tried to introduce the policy previously but, on appeal, inspectors ruled in favour of builders who did not want the affordable houses. The local authority is therefore trying to introduce the policy through the local plan and the inspector is challenging the council, although he may ultimately accept it. I believe that the reason for the challenge is that the policy goes against Government guidance, which stipulates 30 per cent. affordable housing. However, as the Minister knows, 30 per cent. is only a minimum. The council is therefore right to propose 50 per cent.

South Shropshire has approximately 350 planning permissions left until 2011 but its local needs housing survey shows that it requires 1,400 affordable homes. The problem is that almost every home that is built needs to be affordable. The local authority cannot achieve that so it is aiming for 50 per cent. I hope that the inspector will not overrule that, but he could. Under the current system, the local authority has the final say, but if the policy was contained in a new development plan document on affordable housing in South Shropshire and an inspector overruled it, South Shropshire would have more executive homes and fewer affordable homes because an inspector had determined that it was not quite in line with what pertained nationally, although I believe that it is.

I know that the Minister cannot comment on that—he cannot even raise an eyebrow in case someone challenges under judicial review—but it is an example of what could go wrong with the new system and the way in which the Minister foresees it working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Minister has not given any explanation of how the system is broke, so I am not sure why he is so desperate to fix it.

The Local Government Association strongly supports the Lords amendments on this issue, as does my own local authority. The chief executive of South Shropshire district council e-mailed me only a few days ago to stiffen my resolve, if it needed stiffening, on this point. Inspectors have to come in from outside; they cannot be from the locality that they are to inspect, for good reasons. There is great concern out there, however, that an inspector coming in from outside might not fully understand the nuances of local need and local development in the way that locally elected people and local officers working there on a day-to-day basis should do. In the case of South Shropshire, these concerns are coming from a council that is very pro-development.

The point of having an inspector's report is to stop a council doing anything that represents a radical departure from the plan, such as not building any affordable housing. I would welcome an inspector going in to report on such a situation. Under the current system, if a council overturns an inspector's report, that report can be taken into account in an appeal by a developer. It would be a material consideration. That is one of the most effective checks. We do not need binding reports. If a council is trying to prevent development when an inspector believes that it should take place, and the developer goes to appeal having lost a planning application, the developer should win on the basis of that material consideration, provided that all other things were equal. The current system therefore has good checks and balances built into it, but the proposed system shifts everything too much in one direction. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give councils just a little of the power that accrues to him under the Bill.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I, too, support the Lords amendment—principally because I have been contacted by representatives of Bedfordshire county council, who wrote to me a few days ago and strongly urged me to back it, just as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has been urged to back it by his local authority. The issues involved are similar to those that we debated earlier this evening when discussing other amendments, but I shall obviously not revisit those issues now. In essence, however, they relate to the undermining of local democracy and accountability, and to the fact that there will be no opportunity for local authorities to correct any errors of fact or misinterpretation that might creep into inspectors' reports.

It is also clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) explained earlier, that circumstances could arise in which an inspector's recommendations are contrary to the existing regional and national planning guidance. Under the proposals, local authorities do not appear to have any recourse to challenge an inspector's recommendation, other than by instigating a judicial review. It is certainly the view of Bedfordshire county council and the Local Government Association that that is not a course that we should force local authorities to go down, as it would be likely to be a lengthy, expensive and difficult process.

Of course, we understand the proper function that inspectors have within the planning process, but that must be balanced vis-à-vis the powers and responsibilities of local planning authorities. In my constituency, considerable disquiet was expressed at a recent Government inspector's decision to allow travellers to remain permanently on local green belt land. That decision involved a completely unauthorised development, about which the local authority and the local people felt very strongly. Indeed, my constituents expressed considerable resentment at, as they saw it, a Government inspector coming in from the other side of the country. They did not believe that the inspector was in tune with the wishes and views of the local people or had a proper understanding of the issues. That resulted in considerable resentment building up.

My fear is that we shall see more resentment building up. People will feel that the whole planning process is becoming more remote and more unchallengeable. If a local authority were able to challenge an inspector's decision, there would at least be some contact between the electorate and someone whom they could get hold of locally and who was accountable to them by virtue of wanting to be re-elected every few years. That link will be lost under the new measures, and that will have detrimental consequences for local democracy and for any sense of local involvement in planning issues.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

It is now time for the Minister's test. Will he please intervene and let me know which clause of the Bill is affected by the Lords amendments that we are now discussing?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

We are dealing with clause 22 of the Bill.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Regarding clause 22, does the Minister know when the Secretary of State last intervened to overrule a planner's view on a development plan? I could give him a whole series of cases in which the Secretary of State has overruled his inspector, when the inspector has overruled a local authority. I do not want to sound as though I am against inspectors, but the Secretary of State's considered view in such cases was that the local authority was right and that the inspector should be overruled. If that happens, it is either because the Secretary of State has received representations, perhaps from the local authority or the community—which we hear so much about—or from some other source.

I am not sure how big a difference there is between the Local Government Association and the Minister's advisers. This is not the time to go back into the history of where the ghastly expression "spatial planning" came from—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Europe.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

It might have come from Europe, but I am not sure why we needed to adopt it. We could always have translated it, could we not? I am all in favour of being a European as well as being British, but if I were to go out into the high street of Worthing and ask people what they thought of the Government's policy on spatial planning, they would say, "Say that again. What's it all about?" The Government have failed to explain why they are putting forward their national strategy in this way, and why they have not managed to convince the very sensible people in the Local Government Association, which includes the local councils in the Worthing, West constituency.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I think that my hon. Friend will find that the term "spatial development" was first introduced in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I made exactly the same point at that time as my hon. Friend is making now. It is a new-fangled concept with which I find it difficult to come to terms. I notice that since it was introduced in that Act, there has been less and less space in London as buildings get taller and taller.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I believe that, in a number of respects, the Government's intentions are good. In the seven years that I have represented my present constituency, however, I have also learned that the Deputy Prime Minister, in trying to deal with the traffic problems along the A27 corridor through West Sussex, has set up a system that was designed not to produce a result. When I now hear from the planning Minister and the Government that they want a system that will not allow for delay but will identify delay and overcome it, I wonder what that will mean for the people who will lose their lives, be injured or have their environment wrecked by an uncontrolled traffic flow on unsuitable roads through urban areas.

The Minister does not need to give me an answer this evening because that is a local point, but I hope that he will ensure that, if the Government are so concerned about this spatial planning, it should include transport planning as well. That would be helpful, because many development issues are affected in that way. I could give the Minister an example of a case in which the Secretary of State overruled an inspector in my neighbouring constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham two or three years ago.

West Sussex county council has been well led and well run at officer and member level, and I want it to be satisfied with planning controls that will help it to achieve what it is required to achieve, and which will stop it being dissatisfied because the Government are not listening to the reasonable voices in the House of Lords, and which are being supported by the Local Government Association. That is why I wrote to the Minister a couple of weeks ago asking him to explain why the Lords amendments were unacceptable, and either to accept them or to present alternatives that would bring about consensus on what the Local Government Association, the Lords and the West Sussex councils wanted—together with a reasonable opportunity for the Government to achieve the aim of their wholesale changes.

At present, I think that the House would judge it fair to say, with a half-smile, that the Minister has not even tried to justify the Government's intentions, other than by saying that the Government do not want anything to happen after the inspector has made a recommendation because they do not want that. We have heard no argument that stands up to reason. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) kindly pointed out, we have heard no response to my request for real examples of things going wrong. I hope that if the Government's majority—which, I note, has not been reflected in this evening's Back-Bench speeches—succeeds in overturning the amendment, their lordships will go on requiring Ministers in the other place to produce arguments that make some kind of sense. At present, this House is being asked to approve something that does not make sense.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I hope to deal with most of what has been said, although I shall not detain the House for long.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke of the complexity of the architecture. I think that we have already dealt with that. Although—if I may use a colloquialism—I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, those of us who have thrashed out these issues in Committee are pretty clear about the structures. Any new system takes some understanding, but I am confident that this system is understood. The fact that a number of local authorities are already drawing up their local development frameworks suggests that it is clearly understood out there.

I strongly rebut what I believe to have been the assertion of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that this was a top-down system. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are introducing much more powerful elements of community involvement to a planning system that is already characterised—perhaps more than most areas of local and national government activity—by a greater degree of public participation than that system has yet experienced. That is a direct contradiction of the notion of top-down decision-making.

Front-loading is essential to the concept of binding inspectors' reports. As I shall demonstrate, all key material issues will emerge earlier in the process, and there are innumerable safeguards to prevent the introduction of unpredictable measures. All interested parties will have an opportunity to participate at the outset.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister said that I had described this as a top-down system. If he reads Hansard, he will find that I said nothing of the sort. In the examples I gave, inspectors were not just failing to go along with what the local authority wanted, but their actions were not in line with national and regional planning guidance, and thus not in line with the top. My point was that a check would be needed after an inspector's report. I agree with the Minister about front-loading, which I think will remove the need for numerous inspectors' reports and public inquiries. I agree with all the positives. However, I do not see the necessity to take away a council's ability to overturn a report.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Gentleman did not use the expression "top-down", I withdraw my allegation and apologise. However, he did say that the inspector would be acting in Ministers' names, which is absolutely not the case. The inspector will be entirely independent, which is why clause 19 provides for an independent examination.

The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) used a traffic analogy. I repeat that the inspector will be strictly limited in terms of the new matters that he may present. It is invidious to cite cases and Ministers must be awfully careful with planning issues, but it is well known that a weakness of the planning system—for it is bound to have some acknowledged weaknesses—is that it can lead to excessive delays. Frequent unreasonable delays at the modification stage are a byword, and the Bill seeks to deal with them.

At this point I should scotch another canard. I seem to begin all my replies by scotching canards. The hon. Member for Poole began his description of what he called the architecture of the Bill by saying that we began with a national spatial strategy. There is no such thing, although we have the planning policy statements and the White Papers which inform the regional spatial strategies, which in turn inform the local development documents.

Conservative Members have expressed anxiety about the powers which, they assert, will accrue to inspectors. They fear that an inspector might make changes to a development plan document that would not be considered at the examination. I repeat that the inspector will be able to recommend a substantive change in the document only if people have had an opportunity to make representations on it, or it has been considered at an examination and the representations, or debates, support the change.

Generally, inspectors will not be able to introduce new proposals. Any new proposals must be tested against the criteria for soundness at the public examination stage. Inspectors will be able to recommend a substantive change in the plan and the policies only if it has been through due process. They can, however, reconvene the examination panel or return the matter to the local planning authority for consideration. As a result, it will be subject to the preparation of a new plan or the alteration of the shortly-to-be-adopted development plan document.

The inspector's job will be to consider both the test of soundness and the representation. If he or she believes that the plan contains a substantial weakness that has not been subject to representations but on which he or she might need to make a recommendation, he or she must raise that at the examination and invite discussions.

Safeguards will be available to local authorities in extremis. The hon. Member for Worthing, West mentioned factual errors. A fact check will be available to authorities. The local planning authority will see a draft of the report and will be able to point out factual errors, which will be set out in the final version of planning policy statement 12.

Secondly, anyone can ask the Secretary of State to exercise his intervention powers to direct changes—that is in clause 21—or to call in the plan, under clause 23, where a development plan document is up for approval and under challenge. Challenge in the courts is possible under clause 109 on the grounds that the document is not within the appropriate power or that a procedural requirement has not been complied with. As we have said, in certain other circumstances judicial review might be appropriate.

Finally, Members from both Opposition parties have alluded to the Birmingham case. Again, it will be understood that it is not appropriate for me to comment on specifics, but I put it to those hon. Gentlemen that they are assuming that the new arrangements will be exactly like the existing ones, except that the inspector's report will be the final stage. As I have sought to explain in extreme detail, the features of the new system mean that that will not be the case. It seems unlikely that examples such as Birmingham will recur.

In the light of all those considerations, I invite the House to resist the Lords amendment.

Clause 37 — Development Plan

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 27 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Amendment No. 26 would mean that the Mayor's spatial development strategy—the London plan—would not become part of the development plan until it had been through a revision. Amendment No. 27 makes a consequential amendment to the wording of clause 37.

Making the plan that sets the strategic planning framework for the region a part of the development plan is an essential part of affirming its status and of reducing uncertainty and ambiguity. This is just as applicable to the London plan as it is to the regional spatial strategies in other regions. In both the regions and London, we believe that our starting point should be for the existing documents to become part of the development plan. We see no advantage in a delay while those plans are prepared from scratch or existing plans altered. The only exceptions to this approach are regional planning guidance 3, London; 3a, Strategic Views in London; 3b, River Thames; 9b, River Thames; and 9a, Thames Gateway. The RPGs that will not become regional spatial strategies are those that have been replaced in large part by the Mayor's London plan or cover areas already covered by another RPG and were not subject to an examination in public when they were prepared.

I do not agree that, unlike the arrangements in our regions, the London plan should not become part of the development plan because at the early stages of its preparation people did not know that the legislation would be introduced. The Bill was introduced on 4 December 2002 and we wrote to the London panel in January 2003—before the examination in public on the draft plan—to draw its attention to the provisions. Our letter was copied to the Association of London Government to make London boroughs aware of the matter.

In any event, the importance of a spatial development plan prepared by the Mayor was well known and I cannot accept the argument that all those who made representations, including all the London boroughs, did not make their best case when doing so.

I do not accept the view that the current London plan contains too much detail to be a strategic development plan. Circular 1/2000, which sets out the arrangements for strategic planning in London, makes it clear that the London plan must deal only with matters of strategic importance. The panel was well aware of that. Where the panel report concluded that policies were insufficiently strategic, that has been taken account of in the final version of the plan. But there is no reason why the London plan should not contain strategic development control policies.

It should not be forgotten that London has a history of quite detailed strategic guidance; for example, the regional planning guidance on strategic views in the capital and on the River Thames. This reflects the particularly close interdependencies of a city compared with a much larger region. The Mayor of London is charged with preparing eight statutory strategies that need to be consistent each with the other. This necessarily means that the London plan needs to contain a substantial number of policies. It does not mean—this is borne out by the examination in public—that they are not appropriate for a strategic development plan in London.

By making the London plan part of the development plan we are increasing clarity and reducing ambiguity. We are not fundamentally altering the existing relationship—one of general conformity—between it and unitary development plans. The practical consequences of the change will be limited. Under the current arrangements, the London plan can still be a "material consideration" when a London borough considers a planning application. The weight given to the policies in the London plan may in some cases be significant. Making the London plan part of the development plan does not mean that boroughs will be suddenly faced with a different set of issues to consider when dealing with planning applications. The same basic principles still apply.

I have already said that it is right that the London plan should contain strategic development control policies. Nevertheless, for the majority of planning applications, it is unlikely that the London plan as a strategic document will be an important consideration. I do not see the Mayor becoming involved in non-strategic applications, particularly as we are not altering the arrangements under which the Mayor is to be consulted only on applications that may raise issues of strategic importance.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am following the Minister very carefully because this issue is of great concern and interest to Londoners. Can he assure me that the Mayor cannot intervene in the drawing up of development plan documents by London boroughs, except where he has the right under existing legislation to call in certain applications for significant developments that are going to take place? It would be very helpful if he confirmed that point.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I can confirm that the Mayor's powers of intervention relate to what may be deemed and defined as strategic issues of concern. That is the limit of his powers of intervention, and I hope at some stage to furnish the hon. Gentleman with some examples.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am trying to curtail the discussion as we have a lot of other things to talk about, but I should point out that the Mayor can call in any application that refers to any part of the metropolitan green belt land. In some cases, applications relating to what is a small and insignificant part of the green belt can be called in by the Mayor. Can the Minister enlighten us on that point?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As I said, the Mayor has no power to intervene in borough unitary development plans; he can, however, direct refusal of what are deemed to be strategic planning applications. I hope that that offers the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. Of course, the criteria for those interventions and the criteria relating to strategic planning applications are defined.

However, where applications raise strategic issues that are covered by policies in the London plan, it is true that that could be an important consideration. Given the strategic role of the London plan, it should be reasonably straightforward for London boroughs, in determining planning applications—and for inspectors attending appeals against the refusal of planning applications—to give appropriate weight to strategic and local planning policies. The concerns expressed about planning applications becoming increasingly complex to determine do not stand up.

As the House is aware, under these arrangements the Mayor already has the power to direct the refusal of a planning application of potentially strategic importance if he considers that granting permission would be contrary to the London plan, or prejudicial to its implementation. The London plan was prepared by the Mayor following extensive consultation and a public examination. London needs a spatial framework, and it is absolutely right that it should have development plan status.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The Minister has gone some way towards reassuring Members about the concerns expressed, but it is still important to go round the track on this issue. Baroness Hamwee expressed concern in the other place that the London spatial strategy would take precedence over the boroughs' plans, and she discussed the way in which they would interact. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has drawn my attention to a letter sent to the Minister by Michael Snyder, chairman of the policy and resources committee of the Corporation of London. It is important to put the corporation's concerns on the record, and the letter states that one of them

"relates to the status of the London Plan. When the plan was issued for public consultation in June 2002, our assumption was that its purpose was to guide the City in the preparation and review of our unitary development plan. The Bill, however, considerably alters the Plan's status.

The Corporation's Planning and Transportation Committee considered the Plan on 6th September 2002 (some three months before the Bill was published). While the Committee was generally supportive, it expressed concern both at its length and its level of detail. The London Plan contains much more detail than is usual in a strategic document. Representations along these lines would most certainly have been made to the Mayor if the Corporation had been aware of the importance the plan was to be afforded by the Bill. Since I understand that other boroughs would have made similar representations, it appears unlikely that the London Plan would have remained in the form in which it now appears. The Corporation has no objection to a London Plan being afforded the status of a development document. It does, however, object to the existing London Plan being afforded that status.

The level of detail in the London Plan gives rise to a second practical concern. The Corporation's planning officers would naturally expect to consider all major planning applications against the London Plan. Such is the level of detail in the Plan, however, that they will have to consider even the smallest applications against it. You will appreciate that this requirement will delay consideration of planning applications which would otherwise proceed expeditiously, running counter to the Government's laudable endeavour of speeding up the planning system."

The Minister has reassured us that the Mayor's powers extend only to strategic matters, and that even though the London plan—it costs £50 and I am told that it is a jolly good read—goes into great detail, that does not necessarily mean that the corporation's concern about the testing of every application, even the smallest one, against the plan is necessarily justified. I am glad that that has been put on the record, and we do not wish to press the matter further.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was about to quote from exactly the same letter from the Corporation of London. As the third party, one frustration that the Liberal Democrats have to suffer is that sometimes, certain things have already been said before one gets to one's feet. However, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) quoted the letter in excellent fashion and put the corporation's concerns on the record.

My noble Friend Baroness Hamwee was right to raise this issue, not least because it has forced the Government to clarify the London plan's status in relation to the unitary development plans, and the question of its precedence. The corporation has expressed concern about the timing of the document, and it is not alone. The borough that it represents is not the only borough that might have given a different account of itself when the London plan was drawn up, had it known the extent to which the Bill would alter the plan's status. It is unfortunate for the Government that they have been caught out; the problem is one of timing as much as anything else.

Baroness Hamwee, who is extremely knowledgeable about London planning matters, has sought to ensure that the plan that will be enforced is not this one—the £50 document, which runs to rather a lot of pages—but a subsequent plan that is produced in the light of consultation and of this Bill. I understand the Government's reservations and why they are arguing a different case. As I have said, they have gone some way towards clarifying matters. They have made it clear that they do not expect this to be the guiding document for every planning application in London in the next few years.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I am perfectly sure that the Government realise that concern does exist; otherwise, the Minister would not have placed a written statement in the record today, setting out a little more clearly how the London plan and the UDPs interact. Baroness Hamwee has done the London planning system a service by raising what is a very important issue, in order to iron out the genuine concerns raised by London borough councils.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The statement to which he refers has clarified many of the issues, but I hope that the Minister will check whether there are any other areas of contention. Perhaps the Minister will agree to look again at the concerns raised in the Lords, just to check whether any more clarifications are needed, but I am inclined to agree that, in light of the Government's explanations and assurances about their understanding of the interrelationship of the UDPs and the London plan, we need not press the matter at this stage.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

In a sense, we already have regional government in London, and county status. My borough has an estimated population of 315,000, which is a considerable number, and has many of the same planning powers as the counties. Regardless of whether we favour regional government, it is essential that all the planning bodies should work in co-operation and consensus rather than confrontation.

I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that, with the spatial strategy, the Mayor will not be able to change the boroughs' development plan documents once they have been adopted. It would be helpful for the boroughs to know that. I hope that he can give an answer now, but if not it would be helpful if he could write to me.

I want to iterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said about the status of the London plan. I emphasise that when it was issued it was said to be a guide for the 32 boroughs and the Corporation of London and was certainly not supposed to be sacrosanct, with everyone rowing in behind it.

I am sorry to go off policy and get into personalities, but we have a Mayor—whether he is a charismatic figure is for others to decide—who used to be a member of the Minister's party, but had a Damascene conversion and became independent, which some people think secured him the mayoralty. However, for the first time in my political career, which I admit has been far too long, I have witnessed a double Damascene conversion, and now it seems that he is back in the fold. I warn the Minister that he none the less has certain fixed positions and ambitions, and I do not think that they entirely coincide with new Labour orthodoxy as I understand it.

As a Greater London Member like me, the Minister must know that the Mayor would like to abolish the 32 boroughs and have perhaps four or six—I cannot remember the precise number. Without intruding on his party's private grief, I implore the Minister to take a hold on the Mayor of London and see that he does what the Government think is right, and not to give him too free a rein, because there is a risk that everything will come tumbling down in tears. I am sure that I have the understanding, if not the agreement, of all Greater London Members, and not least the good lady, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan). It is essential that the compartments of responsibility and power in the planning system should be utterly defined.

I am not quite sure what the difference is between "conformity" and "general conformity" in clause 23. My perhaps too simple view is that there is either conformity or there is not. If we start dividing it, as in so many other areas in this Bill, we will start getting into trouble and giving the lawyers a field day.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister must make crystal clear the relationship between the boroughs' unitary development plans and the Mayor's spatial strategy, as otherwise there will be room for considerable chaos. When one adds into the mix the unitary development corporation in the Thames gateway, which will override both plans, there is even more room for doubt. The Wandsworth borough planning officer to whom I spoke some while ago about the interaction between the development plans and the spatial strategy was scathing about the amount of uncertainty and bureaucracy that could be generated.

The Minister issued a statement on planning today. Perhaps he can explain to us what it means. It says:

"The test is of 'general conformity' and not conformity. This means that it is only where inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity."

I am sure that the whole House has followed that so far. It continues:

"The fact that the UDP is inconsistent with one or more of the policies in the SDS, either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal, does not, by itself, mean that the UDP is not in general conformity."

I suspect that the House may be beginning to get lost by now. It continues:

"Rather the test is how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of the delivery of the SDS;

Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies or proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it must give robust reasons for this".

That is real civil service gobbledegook. It is very important, in order that the planning system in London is not cast into chaos, that the Minister should give a clear explanation. I look forward to his reply with some consternation and trepidation.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am tempted to say that I rather share the hon. Gentleman's sense of anticipation, but I will endeavour to satisfy his concerns in due course.

I should point out to my old sparring partner the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that, among my multifarious responsibilities, I am the Minister for London and therefore in regular intercourse with the Mayor—as it were. He will also be aware that I have the honour to represent Streatham, or St. Reatham, as we like to call it—I recall that he himself is a resident of Batterséa—and that the Mayor was born and bred there, and is therefore Streatham's second favourite son. I am well aware of the Mayor's inclinations and dispositions, but I am delighted that he is back in the fold and I will be second to none in the passion with which I campaign for his re-election as the Labour Mayor of London on 10 June.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Before the Minister comes to the explanation that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked for, can he clarify, perhaps in his capacity as the Minister for London, whether he was in favour of the Mayor's readmission, as I gather that the issue split the Cabinet?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

rose—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Let me save the Minister the trouble of doing that by saying that it is outside the scope of our discussion.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I knew that you would say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your intervention, but it goes without saying that I am unqualified in my enthusiasm for the Mayor, his membership of my party and his re-election campaign over the next couple of months.

If I may be a trifle more serious about the issues raised by Opposition Members, let me respond first to observations made by the Corporation of London. Michael Snyder is a member of a council with which I am in regular contact. We were aware that it was possible to construe the Mayor's interpretation of general conformity as perhaps being unduly detailed. We are clear that it is a test of general conformity and not conformity. That means that it is only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy or London plan that it should be considered as not being in general conformity. Conservative Members alluded to my statement today, which set out the Government's policy on general conformity. That statement reflects those principles and we also intend to provide guidance on the issue in planning policy statement 12.

The hon. Member for Cotswold challenged me to provide a clearer explanation of our statement on the Government's policy on general conformity between the Mayor's spatial development strategy, the London plan and London boroughs' unitary development plans. I will also seek to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on the relationship between the Mayor's powers and borough development plan documents.

The test is, we believe, of general conformity, not conformity. That means that it is only where an inconsistency or omission in a UDP would cause significant harm to the implementation of the spatial development strategy that the UDP should be considered not to be in general conformity. The fact that a UDP is inconsistent with one or more policies in the spatial development strategy—either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal—does not by itself mean that the UDP is not in general conformity; rather it tests how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of delivery of the SDS.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my train of thought, I will be only too delighted to deal with his particular issues of concern. I am seeking to resolve some of the evident anxieties that he demonstrated.

Where a borough considers that one or more of the UDP policies and proposals are not consistent with the SDS, it has to give robust reasons for its view. The opinion of the Mayor—that a UDP is not in general conformity—does not mean that a document automatically falls. Rather, the Mayor's opinion on the matter will go forward as a duly made objection to be considered by the inspector. At the inquiry, the inspector will determine whether he or she supports the opinion, and recommend accordingly. In addition to concerns about a lack of general conformity, the Mayor may wish to make other representations about making changes to specific policies and proposals. So far, so good.

Let me turn to the specific issue of the Mayor's power, raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I am pleased to offer the reassurance that the Mayor has no power to intervene in borough development plan documents, but the hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the status of the UDP. Where a UDP review has passed the formal deposit stage, there is no specific provision for the Mayor to make formal objections on grounds of general conformity, but, like any other party, the Mayor may make representations to a borough at any time before the adoption of the plan. However, the Secretary of State would wish the Mayor and the boroughs to resolve issues of general conformity through discussion, having regard to the Secretary of State's policy. It will be for the boroughs to satisfy themselves that a UDP is in general conformity with the spatial development strategy before proceeding to adoption. I would also like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Mayor cannot call in any planning application, but can direct refusal of strategic planning applications. The definition of a strategic application is set out as I have indicated in circular 1/2000.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister is merely reading out words of civil service gobbledegook. Will he please explain in his own words the meaning of "significant harm" and "inconsistency" with the UDP. It would be good to hear in the Minister's own words what some of those terms mean. It remains unclear to me—and, I suspect, to the rest of the House and certainly to the planning community in London—what exactly will happen and the degree to which the UDP has to be out of kilter with the Mayor's spatial plan. Please can the Minister do better and explain to the House what those terms mean?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

With permission, I would like to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman should not get so agitated. It seems to me that the words—my own words—that I just articulated are absolutely crystal clear. I also draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have both gone out of their way to welcome the clarification that my statement today has offered. That will do for me.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 27 disagreed to.

Clause 44 — Major Infrastructure Projects

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

We have considerable sympathy with the principles behind the amendment, but we do not think that either part of the amendment is necessary or sets out the best way to achieve the objectives. I shall deal with each part of the amendment in turn.

The first part refers to economic impact assessments. We would expect the promoter of major infrastructure projects to engage with all parties at the earliest possible stage in the development of such projects. Indeed, we expect promoters to do full economic analyses of their project. It would be surprising if any developer or private or public funding body were prepared to sign up to major infrastructure projects without appropriate economic analysis being done. We must recognise that it is only at the stage that the application is made that the Secretary of State will be able declare that he thinks that the application is of national or regional importance and should therefore be called in, rather than left to the local planning authority. Only after that decision was made would the major infrastructure project rules come into play. It is the Government's view that to require an economic impact report to be completed at that stage is too late in the process.

As I said, we would expect some form of economic impact assessment or analysis to have been completed at a much earlier stage. Assuming that the application is called in, the inspector will consider the economic effects, along with all the other aspects of the application as part of the inquiry. Those would also include environmental and any other impacts, and local people would have a further opportunity to raise their concerns, including any concerns on economic aspects, at the inquiry. If the economic impact is disputed, concerns can be raised about that, too. However, to require an economic impact assessment based on a particular format at this late stage therefore seems unnecessary. It also raises questions about why an economic impact report alone should be a statutory requirement for a major infrastructure project inquiry, bearing in mind the fact that there will be other considerations—about the impact on local communities, local amenities and other services, for example—none of which would be specified in the Bill. The Government do not want to predetermine through the legislation which issues the inspector should consider or focus on at an inquiry. The inspector will need to be able to consider what the particular issues to be resolved are, and what to devote inquiry time to, in each particular case.

The second subsection of the Lords amendment would require that

"Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a . . . White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question"

whether the development is needed. Again, we do not think that that requirement is necessary. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have said that where there is a national policy statement White Paper, it should help to reduce the argument at a planning inquiry about the need for a specific development at a particular site—but that of course, the inspector is likely to have to consider the balance between need and other factors.

Those who oppose a specific development will be able to present their arguments against it, and it is right that they should have the opportunity to do so. It has never been the Government's intention to rule out the possibility of the inspector spending some time considering need, but that will be done in the context of what is said about need in the national policy statement. The inspector must ensure that all relevant impacts of a specific development are considered during an inquiry, and that means all material considerations, together with relevant impacts such as the economic or environmental impact.

The aim of this part of the Bill is to speed up the inquiry process for granting planning permission for major infrastructure projects. We are sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendment, but we think that legislative provision to enable an inspector to consider the issue of need is unnecessary. The Lords proposals in both aspects of the amendment are unnecessary, so we ask hon. Members to reject it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

In my experience, major infrastructure projects are often justified on the basis of economic benefit—or alleged economic benefit. Projects are frequently justified by claims about regeneration, job creation or trading opportunities. I am sure that other hon. Members will share my experience that in those circumstances, hapless communities are accused of being hostile to those advantages when they understandably seek to defend their communities from ugly or environmentally damaging schemes. Aesthetic arguments are regarded as obtuse or fanciful, and are too frequently disregarded.

Yet there are those of us—I hope that they are represented in the Chamber tonight—who believe that the pursuit of truth and beauty is the most noble purpose of politics. In assessing economic advantage, it is important that other costs should also be measured and weighed, and the Lords, through their amendment, seek to rebalance the scales in favour of local communities.

Lords amendment No. 41 is designed to test empirically the economic regeneration benefits that major projects promise. I recognise that with major strategic infrastructural developments, there will often be broader benefits that do not necessarily accrue in the first instance to the community in which the development takes place. However, where local people's quality of life will be directly, and sometimes dramatically, affected by such proposals, those people should have a key role in the decision-making process.

The Lords' relatively modest suggestion that such factors should be measured independently and that the regeneration possibilities should be tested seems to me balanced and reasonable. I agree with my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, who said in the other place that

"a robust appraisal of whether demonstrable economic benefits will accrue must take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c.904.]

I know that you will forgive me for mentioning a local example, Mr. Deputy Speaker; in my constituency I am currently fighting a proposal to erect a massive number of wind turbines 100m or 120m tall—monstrous in a fenland landscape, as you will know. All kinds of claims are being made about the benefits of those turbines, but few of them are tested or subjected to the sort of independent analysis that is necessary if the significant costs in environmental damage are to be measured against those advantages.

Inexact and uncosted claims are often made for such local planning applications, just as they are for major infrastructure projects of the sort that we are debating under the amendments. I shall return to that matter in both a local and a national context later, on behalf of my constituents and in defence of my local landscape.

Lack of clarity about the assumptions that underpin development proposals often make the decisions on such projects all the more difficult. Independent analysis would discourage purely spurious claims, while allowing genuine benefits to be measured and weighed against costs, as I have described. It would restore public confidence in the system and assist with good decision making.

Where people are facing a major project that will disrupt their community, they feel that they have little influence, and little opportunity to make their case. If they have to do so on the basis of what they perceive to be inexact information, or there is a lack of clear factual support for the project, that feeling of disempowerment is all the greater.

The Government have accepted that principle elsewhere. As the Lords mentioned when they debated these matters, the Department for Transport is taking forward the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment that economic impact reports should be produced before decisions on new transport infrastructure are taken.

In that instance, the Government have recognised that such impact assessments can assist proper planning and decision making. Yet in this Bill, at this time, in this detail they are not doing so.

Governments, when they run into difficulties, become increasingly suspicious of the people they govern. No one loves the man he fears, as Aristotle said. I suspect that the Government are becoming increasingly suspicious of the people and are beginning to disregard arguments that people should have the opportunity to have their say and to have their voice listened to.

The arguments that have been asserted successfully and convincingly in the Lords would result not only in what I described earlier, but would allow for better and earlier public scrutiny of proposals. If we trust people and believe that they have a right and competence to be involved in a process, we need to provide them with information. We need to provide them with the facts so that they can become involved up front when the decision is taken, not later on appeal as has been suggested as a rather weak alternative. Truly believing in power exercised by people means supporting the kind of proposals embodied in the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend will be aware that in spite of the Government's timetabling of the Bill and two whole sets of Committee sittings, this matter was not discussed at all in Committee. I say that merely in passing.

Clause 44(4) provides that if the Secretary of State gives a direction under the section, the application must be referred to him. That lies behind the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. Would it not be a better procedure if the local planning authority considered each major infrastructure project as if it were a normal planning application, and then, and only then, once the local authority had heard the views of local people and made its own decision, the Secretary of State could call it in, as he has the right to do with any planning application at present before a determination is made by a local authority? If he did that, the local democratic process could operate.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend describes with typical assiduity and insight a different balance in central and local relations. He is speaking about a situation in which a local authority would assess the merits of a scheme in the first instance, on the basis, I hope, of the kind of empirical information that I have described. The Secretary of State could subsequently take a view, as my hon. Friend rightly says he can now, about the local authority's decision, the basis on which it was made and the wider public interest. That would rebalance the relationship, and it would change local perceptions of schemes.

Half the problem is that the further we move decisions from local people and the more obtuse we make the reasoning behind them, the more likely we are to fuel irrational views about such schemes. If there is honest, open, up-front local discussion, based on good independent information, many of the concerns that can properly be satisfied by examination of the facts can, frankly, be dealt with. The more distant and esoteric the matter becomes, the more likely it is that there will be local concerns. My hon. Friend makes a helpful and interesting suggestion. The Minister has heard it, and I think that she will have been impressed by it. She may well wish to rise in a moment or two to say that she has thought again as a result of what he suggests.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I suggest that when such matters are called in by the Secretary of State and go to an inspector for a major infrastructure inquiry, the inspector would be able to deal with such an inquiry much more judiciously if he had the benefits of the local democratic process and of hearing local views? That would give him a much more comprehensive base on which to make his decision.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is what happens with a typical planning application of the normal kind when it goes to appeal. The inspector studies what has happened before the stage at which he becomes involved and listens to local opinion during the course of the appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right to say that what he proposes would be much closer to normal good practice than the system that will result from what the Government propose. The Lords go some way to improving that proposal, although not quite as far as my hon. Friend, by introducing a degree of empiricism. My hon. Friend hits on an important point, however, when he talks about the balance between central Government and the locality in these sensitive matters. Major infrastructure projects and planning proposals of that kind are almost always highly contentious, and no one in the House would pretend that they will ever be plain sailing for any Government who seek to introduce major changes of this kind. There will always be different views locally, and there will always be good arguments on both sides of the case. However, the introduction—as the Lords propose—of a greater degree of upfront analysis into the process would improve the Bill rather than limit or damage it.

The second amendment in the group deals with site-specific proposals in Government White Papers. In effect, that unhappy trend bypasses the planning process altogether. I make no apology for quoting Lord Hanningfield again, because he is a great authority on such matters and the distinguished leader of Essex county council. He said, in a debate on this subject:

"Major infrastructure projects rarely enjoy all-round support"—

as I said a few moments ago—

"but they must have public legitimacy."

It is an erosion of democratic decision-making if a White Paper pre-empts the question of whether a specific development is needed. As Lord Hanningfield points out:

"A White Paper consultation does not adhere to the same checks and balances as a planning application."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 905.]

The Lords amendment would allow an inspector to examine the justification for a site-specific proposal in a White Paper, at an early stage and in a well-understood fashion, thus allowing public scrutiny, proper local debate and well-informed decision making.

Too often, the need for a development is taken as read and the argument revolves around the strength or otherwise of objections. That might be said of the planning process generally. There is a presumption in favour of development, but it is important that the a priori case is examined, as well as the reservations and objections. That is all the more valid if the a priori case is embodied in a Government White Paper. Some people claim that the White Paper process is implicitly consultative and I suppose that that is true, but as Lord Hanningfield implies, it cannot be compared with the rigorous process that the planning system, at its best, can deliver. The need for a development should be tested. White Papers are not adequate in that respect and the Lords once again highlight an important weakness in the Bill.

In both the cases that I have made, the Lords amendments would strengthen and improve the Bill. As the Minister said earlier, and I should have perhaps acknowledged, the Government have listened to the Lords on a wide variety of matters in relation to the Bill. The Government have accepted several of the suggestions made by the other place and the Minister was generous in his assessment of the quality of debate there. Given the strength of the arguments made in the other place on these amendments, which have been reaffirmed tonight, I hope that the Government will think again on these issues. The amendments are not unhelpful or damaging: they are designed to make the Bill better law.

More politically, the Lords have once again championed the interests of the people against arbitrary power and insensitive Government. These very sensitive Ministers should listen to the Lords' case, accept the amendment and show that they are part of a listening team.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman's remarks were more of a major infrastructure speech than a speech on a major infrastructure project.

The Minister attempted to dismiss the amendment on two grounds. Effectively, she said that the first part is unnecessary because economic impact reports will be compiled anyway. Her argument on the second part was that it is also unnecessary because the inspector will be able to question the need for specific development. According to her, the amendment is completely unnecessary because it all happens anyway, but if that is the case, there is no harm in its being in the Bill because it strengthens the case.

I have a series of questions relating to each part of the amendment to flesh out what the Minister said. The first part of the amendment states:

"Any planning application that the Secretary of State declares is of national or regional importance, as designated through subsection (1), must be subject to an economic impact report",

but it does not say when. It could be before the major infrastructure project is declared of national or regional importance. People could claim that the economic impact report has been done, as specified in the Bill, even though it was completed before the declaration of national or regional importance, and it would not need extra work.

It may, however, be the case that one of the projects does not, for whatever reason, have an economic impact report before the Secretary of State declares, at the point of planning application, that it is a major infrastructure project. In those circumstances, it would be reasonable and, indeed, desirable, especially as the Government rightly set great store by economic impact reports, that a report is produced. In that rare case when one has not been produced, the Bill would ensure that it is.

I fail to understand the Minister's argument that the first part of the amendment is unnecessary because there will be an economic impact report in most cases. The amendment would not force people to compile another report. It would not slow the process down. If it contained the words "must be subject to a new economic impact report or one after the Minister's has made the call," I would have sympathy with the argument that it would slow the process down, but it does not say that. The report could be produced beforehand. The hon. Lady needs to flesh out her argument if she is to continue to oppose it on those grounds.

On the second part of the amendment, the Minister said that we do not need to stipulate that the inspector

"shall be able to question the need for a specific development"

because any inspector can question that need, balanced against the other considerations, but that assumes that all applications will end up with the inspector, who will always produce a report. If the Minister can assure me that there will always be an inspector's report on major infrastructure projects and it will always be within the bounds of the inspector to consider the need for the development, perhaps the second part is not necessary, although its inclusion would do no harm. I suspect, however, that there may be cases when the Government want to speed up the process and do not envisage the inspector producing a report. Will the Minister confirm that some major infrastructure developments will not have an inspector's report? If that is the case, we might understand the Government's concern about the second part because it binds them to a report, which might not exist.

The Minister looks confused. Perhaps my request was not clear enough. Most of us would envisage that most things that are described as major infrastructure projects would end up with an inspector's report. In those circumstances, she said that the inspector will question the need for the project because that is part of what he can do. However, are there any circumstances in which a major infrastructure project would not end up with an inspector's report? Is the Minister arguing that the problem is that an inspector's report would have to be produced because that is in the Bill? If so, she needs to make that clear. She seems to be arguing that the amendment is not necessary because what it proposes happens anyway, but I am concerned that, on both counts, that is not the case. We need the hon. Lady to be more open and, in light of her response, we may be in a better position to consider whether the matter needs to be pressed to a vote. At the moment, however, her explanations, which are similar to those given by Lord Bassam in the House of Lords, do not provide us with a good reason not to press the proposal to a vote. I am inclined to continue to press for a vote—and I hope that the Conservatives are—unless the Minister offers an explanation as to why the amendment is not necessary or, indeed, helpful. At the moment, she has not even said that it is not helpful.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I shall keep my remarks to a minimum, as my devastating logic has been pre-empted.

I am sorry to repeat myself, but the purpose of the Bill is to introduce a faster but fairer system. The more jaundiced among us may say that we cannot have both—a faster planning or development control system will not be as fair as the existing one. I do not share that view, but I am sure that the Ministers agree that there is a delicate balance between preserving fairness and increasing the pace at which we consider major national or regional planning applications. In fairness to the Government, anybody who has lived through or even partly studied the Sizewell B planning inquiry or the fifth Heathrow terminal inquiry will know that the planning system has gone awry. I do not doubt that procedures can be speeded up, but I add the rider that the inquiry on Sizewell B and the public inquiry on terminal 5 took so long because of political considerations. For all I know, Ministers had a report months if not years before, but decided that it would be prudent to wait until after a general election before giving their verdict on the inquiry. If that is the case—and I believe it is—it is as much a criticism of the last Conservative Government as it is of the present Labour Government.

I therefore accept that we need to look at ways in which we can speed up procedures in massive planning inquiries and applications of regional and national significance.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

As ever my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. The key issue is that slowness owing to undercapacity in the planning system or ineffectiveness and inefficiency must be dealt with. However, the system may slow down because of the proper involvement of members of the public and local communities who wish to have their say. Is not my hon. Friend making the point that the process should not be so fast that that involvement is overridden or disregarded?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

In those mega public inquiries, there is obviously not a shortage of funds, as costs are substantial with the involvement of leading silks and so on. I do not want to go down that track, but I accept that there is a case for speeding up the system. The Minister said that the proposals may be unnecessary, but I agree with my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ludlow that they are needed to cover the eventuality where the Government or the Secretary of State suddenly wants to throw certain options into the ring when deciding—this is old hat—whether we should have a fifth Heathrow terminal, a second runway at Stansted or a fourth London airport. Perhaps that should be a sixth airport, because Luton and Stansted are now considered London airports. The amendment would provide a mechanism for guaranteeing that the Government or the Secretary of State of the day prepared an economic impact report, and would ensure that, at the appropriate time, an inspector could examine the need for the development.

I share the view of the hon. Member for Ludlow that, far from being unnecessary, the amendment would give immense assurance to many people at a time when, rightly or wrongly, the new proposals make them feel that the planning system will become more remote, and that they will be alienated from it as a result of the regional spatial strategy initiatives. I very much hope that the Government will on second thoughts accept Lords amendment No. 41.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Clause 44 relating to major infrastructure projects was not discussed in either of the Bill's Committee stages. Those who remember the genesis and history of the Bill will recall that we had one whole series of Committee sittings and then, without precedent, the Bill was recommitted to Standing Committee. I do not believe that has ever happened to any other Bill. Such was the Government's ineptitude in getting the Bill right in the first place that they had to recommit it to Standing Committee.

Even so, such was the Government's ineptitude in timetabling their business that we never discussed clause 44 and major infrastructure projects—one of the most important aspects of the planning system—in either Committee stage. Had we done so, I have no doubt that we would have been able to debate some of the issues in Standing Committee and the Government might have benefited, as we might have proposed amendments to improve the clause.

Now a sensible amendment has been proposed in another place and the Government are bitterly resisting it. Let me try to explain to the House in a very timid fashion why I think their lordships are right. Let me explain what clause 44 does. I have already quoted from it in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who introduced the topic admirably. I totally agree with him. Clause 44 (2) of the amended Bill, HL Bill 10, states:

"The Secretary of State may direct that the application must be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority."

That is another example of the supreme centralisation of powers to the Secretary of State. In a rather otiose way, subsection (3) repeats that the application must be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority.

As I suggested to my hon. Friend, it would have been far more democratic and far more acceptable if the local planning authority had heard the application in the first place and heard all the local arguments in a democratic fashion, and the inspector had then made his decision. Such a decision would be much more acceptable to local people. After all, we are speaking of major infrastructure projects—the biggest and most controversial planning applications in the land—for example, for an extra runway at Heathrow, a new power station or a major new port facility. All such projects affect local people's lives.

Clause 44 goes on to say:

"The decision of the Secretary of State on any application referred to him under this section is final",

so not only does he have huge centralising powers, but there is no right of appeal. Once he has called the application in for him to deal with, there is no right of appeal by the local planning authority or anyone else against that decision. Bizarrely, under subsection (10), the clause does not apply to Wales. Whereas the Secretary of State has huge centralising powers in relation to England, he does not have the same power in respect of Wales.

The Secretary of State having called in the application, he appoints a lead inspector who—if the Under-Secretary would do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say rather than chatting to her colleague, she might learn something—who does not have the power in his own house to decide how he will carry out the inquiry because he is considerably fettered by the Bill. Proposed new section 76B(2) states:

"The Secretary of State may direct the lead inspector . . . to consider such matters relating to the application as are prescribed . . . to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on those matters."

In other words, the lead inspector cannot decide matters himself. Subsection (3) states:

"After considering any recommendations of the lead inspector the Secretary of State may . . . appoint such number of additional inspectors",

subsection (8) allows him to remove them, and subsection (9) allows him to appoint others. In other words, if the Secretary of State does not like what the subsidiary inspectors are doing he can simply get rid of them and appoint others. Subsection (6) states:

"If the Secretary of State does not act under subsection (3) he must direct the lead inspector to consider the application on his own."

So if he does not like the other inspectors he can get rid of all of them because the lead inspector has to consider the matter.

This is a huge centralising clause, giving the Secretary of State power to meddle and tinker in any way that he likes in these major infrastructure inquiries. This is very centralising and very undemocratic.

By requiring that a major infrastructure project should have an economic impact report, their lordships are proposing a comparatively mild addition to the clause to try to make it slightly less centralising and dictatorial. I cannot see how an inspector could possibly do his job properly without such a report.

The second paragraph of amendment No. 41 states:

"Any planning application for a major infrastructure project based on a site-specific proposal in a national policy statement White Paper shall be considered by an inspector who shall be able to question the need for a specific development."

I should have thought that that was pretty well par for the course. Again, I cannot see how an inspector could carry out a proper inquiry into one of the most major, most controversial, largest applications in the land without questioning the need for that development.

If the Government resist this mild amendment from the Lords tonight they will be being particularly bloody- minded, and I hope that they will not do so because it makes a degree of good sense.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.

First, the inspector will still need to consider the balance between a project's economic impact and other benefits, and will still be able to consider the rigour of different analyses and assessments that are put forward, as is the case at the moment. We in no way dispute the importance of rigorous economic assessment and its role in any analysis of a major infrastructure project and in the debates that are necessary at the planning level. Material considerations that are disputed, whether economic, environmental, social, even aesthetic, will obviously be the territory of the inquiry.

Interestingly, the concern of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) seemed to be that economic considerations outweighed aesthetic, community or other considerations. Some might argue that by putting economic impact assessments over other kinds of impact assessments, we were increasing the likelihood of economic considerations taking precedence.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My argument was that by examining the economic benefits of a proposal one would be best able to weigh them against other considerations. The problem is that the grand claims that are made for such schemes often do not ultimately bear fruit—at least, not for local people. The point is not to prioritise the economic aspects, but to be able to balance them against the others more accurately than is possible without such assessments taking place.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The planning inquiry system is already able to deal with cases in which considerations are disputed. It can take evidence from those who are in favour, those who are against and those who present different analyses, then weigh it in the balance to determine whether particular material considerations or analyses to back them up are adequate or appropriate. That will continue to be so under the Bill.

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that the amendment need not be an extra burden because it could refer to an impact assessment that had taken place at an earlier stage. I have some sympathy with that, but the Government continue to take the view that it is unnecessary to make such specification in the Bill because the inspector will still be able to consider contrary evidence from earlier economic impact assessments or analyses.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If the Minister is to satisfy me on this point, will she state categorically that she cannot foresee any circumstances in which a major infrastructure development would not have an economic impact report attached to it? If she does not accept the amendment, she is leaving open the possibility of getting away with not doing one. If she can assure us that it will happen 100 per cent. of the time anyway, the amendment may be unnecessary.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

It is not necessary to include it in the Bill because appropriate economic analysis will already need to be provided. Personally, I think that that should often happen at a much earlier stage to justify the funding for infrastructure projects. Where there is any dispute or debate about the level of economic analysis that has been provided, the public inquiry process is already able to deal with the situation by considering the competing views that have been put forward. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is unnecessary to include in the Bill specifications that add complexity and are not required for other kinds of impact assessment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister is saying. Is she saying that she can see no circumstances in which an economic impact assessment would not be produced, or that she can see circumstances where it would not be necessary? It is no good saying that the developer will come up with a series of suggestions and stories about what might happen, which could be tested by debate and discussion at a later stage. We are looking for empiricism, precision and independence: will those be guaranteed?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We should be clear about what the amendment would and would not do. It does not specify that an independent economic assessment needs to be done by an independent body that is outside the process, but that an economic impact assessment should be done as part of the process. We would expect economic impact assessments, analyses or reports—however one chooses to describe them—not for all infrastructure projects, but at an early stage in the project development process. It is open for the inquiry process to test and debate those assessments and to determine the different kinds of analysis that might have been put forward should the inspector consider that that is a material consideration, or should it be disputed. Perhaps a specific analysis would not be disputed as part of the inquiry process or the infrastructure project process. We do not therefore need to specify that in the Bill.

In all sorts of legislation, we do not specify that impact assessments are necessary when we expect an inquiry to consider whether something, for example, the impact on the local community, amenities, health infrastructure in the area, housing and so on, is material. We do not specify that things must be assessed, reports compiled or an inquiry conducted in a particular way. We are simply trying to allow the inquiry process to be appropriately flexible and take all such factors into account, bearing in mind that we support the principle that rigorous economic analysis is likely to be an important part of any discussion about infrastructure projects.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Under-Secretary is regarded as bright and one of the Government's rising stars. It will therefore be interesting to note whether she refers to proposed new section 76B(2), which I have already cited. If she were in the Secretary of State's shoes, she would have to direct the lead inspector

"to consider such matters relating to the application as are prescribed".

Can she envisage circumstances during a major, controversial infrastructure project inquiry, such as the terminal 5 and Sizewell B inquiries, in which she would not direct a lead inspector to include an economic assessment and consider whether there was a need for the specific development? If she can give us the assurance that she would always include such an assessment, we might be satisfied.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

It would be inappropriate to try to specify the actions of a future Secretary of State under a particular provision in an inquiry that we cannot anticipate. The Government have often said, here and in the other place, that we expect appropriate and rigorous economic analysis to be conducted at an early stage of major infrastructure projects.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Under-Secretary is on a slightly sticky wicket when she says that she does not want to include such a provision on the face of the Bill or to specify what other forms of impact assessment are needed. Another sort of impact assessment is included in legislation: the environmental impact assessment for major projects. That is part of an EU directive, which has rightly been implemented. There is precedent and the Under-Secretary cannot fall back on the defence that the Government do not specify other impact assessments. I hope that she will not rely on that.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman is right and I shall spend some time considering that because there is an issue about environmental impact assessment. Having trained as an economist, I have a strong prejudice in favour of as much rigorous economic analysis as possible, even though rigorous economists often do not agree about their conclusions. We must acknowledge that, if we are to have a planning system that works efficiently and effectively in every case and is appropriately flexible, we do not want to get into the detail of specifying in primary legislation every aspect that must be considered.

We have environmental impact assessments. We recognise that some issues will be a priority and must be considered but we must also get the balance right to ensure that inspectors make appropriate decisions about what the priorities are and concentrate on the material considerations in the individual project inquiries.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I thank the Under-Secretary for being generous in giving way, but she must be more precise. On the one hand, she says that we need to be flexible and on the other, that she cannot envisage circumstances in which there would not be such an assessment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the Bill gives her the power to ask for such an economic impact assessment, yet she will not give a commitment to do that, despite repeated questions from the official Opposition and the minor parties—I pause for effect—or an assurance that, if she became Secretary of State, she would insist on such assessments. If she would give that assurance, the whole House would be satisfied. Why is she shilly-shallying around? Why is she dancing on the head of a pin over this?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I think that we are starting to get a bit bogged down. I have set out the Government's position, which is that we strongly feel that economic analysis will form an important part of any major infrastructure project assessment. There is scope for an inquiry to consider whatever the most important issues are, and to specify at a late stage that this kind of assessment is necessary seems an unnecessary addition, given that these kinds of issues will need to be considered.

The hon. Member for Ludlow raised some specific issues, and I shall respond to them briefly. He asked whether it would be possible for there not to be an inquiry if a major infrastructure project were at stake. I can assure him that it is inconceivable that there would not be an inquiry and an inspector's report into a major infrastructure project, because the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to deal with projects that are called in for inquiry by the inspector but are so big and in danger of lasting so long that they need additional support and additional arrangements for, for example, several inspectors to get on with the business. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to proposed new section 76B(7), which states:

"In every case the lead inspector must report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) his consideration of the application;

(b) the consideration of the additional inspectors".

The reason for arguing that the second part is not needed therefore has nothing to do with any desire to avoid an inquiry; there will always be an inquiry when a major infrastructure project is designated under this part of the Bill.

Finally, I should like to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I suspect that he has not yet had a chance to have his dinner, because his tetchy tone rather suggested a drop in his blood sugar level. Perhaps he should take advantage of our coming to the conclusion of this group of amendments to grab a Kit-Kat, as I gather my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done.

The hon. Gentleman's concern about the time allowed for the debate was a little churlish, given that the debate that we had in Committee when the Bill was recommitted took place according to the timetable of the Opposition. Had they been so concerned about major infrastructure projects that they wanted to prioritise the issue, they could certainly have raised the matter at any stage, either in the debate on the timing of the Bill or at any other time—but they did not.

The hon. Gentleman raised some other issues. He is concerned not about the specific measures in the Bill, but about the proposals for call-in. He will be aware that those proposals have been in place for a long time. The part of the Bill that deals with major infrastructure projects allows the process to be speeded up by having different aspects looked at by different inspectors in a proper, co-ordinated way so that we do not get stuck with the huge delays that have plagued these projects for a long time.

The Bill provides an opportunity to improve and speed up the way in which major infrastructure projects are dealt with, and the amendments are unnecessary, although we recognise and welcome the spirit behind them and behind the points that have been raised. With that, I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments.

Clause 45 — Simplified Planning Zones

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 130 and 139 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Together, the amendments propose the removal of existing references to, and provision for, simplified planning zones both in the Bill and in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Amendment No. 42 proposes to delete clause 45 from the Bill. Amendment No. 130 proposes to amend schedule 6, which would result in the deletion of all sections of the 1990 Act pertaining to simplified planning zones and the deletion of the accompanying schedule 7 to that Act. Amendment No. 139 proposes to amend schedule 9, which would mean that section 83(1) of the 1990 Act pertaining to simplified planning zones would not be repealed as proposed.

The purpose of clause 45 is to amend the provisions for the creation of simplified planning zones so that SPZs cannot be made by a local planning authority unless the need for one has first been identified in the regional spatial strategy, or in the spatial development strategy in London, or by the National Assembly for Wales.

I am aware that concerns were expressed in the other place about the possible imposition of SPZs. Where the RSS has identified the need for an SPZ in a local planning authority area—not a specific site—the local planning authority must consider whether an SPZ is desirable. If so, it will be for the local planning authority to identify an appropriate location and prepare a draft scheme. The local planning authority will then consult on the scheme, and may hold an inquiry if necessary. Following an inquiry, the LPA will either propose modifications to the scheme and consult on those, or proceed to adoption.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This is a clarification of something that already exists in planning terms. How many of these zones have been created already?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I believe that eight such zones have been created and that a further six have been considered. Of those eight, four remain extant. I hope that that very precise response satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

As I was saying before I was justifiably intervened on, following an inquiry the local planning authority will propose modifications to the scheme and consult on them, or proceed to adoption.

The Secretary of State is provided with powers to direct a local planning authority to make a scheme, or to make it himself, but it is highly unlikely that this power will need to be used. Local planning authorities will have been consulted on the preparation of the regional spatial strategy, and will have been able to express any concerns about RSS proposals. If a strategic need for an SPZ is confirmed in the RSS, the decision as to the exact location within the local authority area will be one for the local planning authority

The provision also enables the lifespan of an SPZ to be varied to suit local circumstances. It can be varied to last any period up to 10 years, rather than just the standard current 10-year period. This provision supports the development of high-tech business areas, which will be referred to as business planning zones—a concept that was first introduced in the planning Green Paper of December 2001. BPZs permit a flexible planning regime that is intended to encourage and support the rapid development of high quality, high-tech business. We envisage that they will be used to encourage investment for growth and regeneration, and to support the development of clusters. BPZs will be high quality and have low environmental impact. All BPZ schemes will be subject to public consultation and will be required to undergo an environmental impact assessment. Their locations will be chosen to meet identified strategic needs and will be identified in the regional spatial strategy; there will be perhaps one or two per region.

BPZs will be a useful strategic tool that will enable the pursuit and implementation of valuable development for business. That is why we want to retain the clause.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

The Minister has given an interesting explanation, and it is clear from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the principle of simplified planning zones has hardly taken off. Even the Minister's expectation of one or two per region, which was also expressed in the other place, does not add up to a great deal. But our main concern is why the provision needs to be changed and why approval needs to be sought through the top-down approach of the regional spatial strategy. Why can we not leave the legislation alone and allow matters to continue as they are? I doubt whether the Government's ambition extends much beyond what has already been achieved under the 1990 Act.

I should also point out that the Law Society does not consider it necessary to introduce new provisions for simplified planning zones, as there are sufficient existing statutory powers for local planning authorities. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has also expressed concerns. In keeping with one or two recent studies, it has considered whether the planning process itself impacts on competitiveness.

This is not one of the most important or weighty issues that we have had to deal with this evening, but we are concerned that the Government are yet again trying to transfer more powers upwards. That the south-east of England—an area the size of Austria, with a population of 8 million—should be the main arbiter of where such zones should be located, rather than local authorities, is indicative of the Government's response. We shall not press this issue to a vote, but it has been interesting to hear what the Minister had to say.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If the Minister were being completely frank, he would have begun by saying that this is not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's favourite clause; rather, it is the Treasury's favourite. These measures were announced in the Budget of two years ago, and in reality this is Gordon's clause. I am not sure whether this constitutes planning with a lot of prudence attached, or planning leading to boom and bust. Either way, this is a Treasury add-on that the ODPM does not really care about.

Baroness Hanham said to Lord Rooker that she had heard more enthusiastic speeches from him, and it is easy to see why. Lord Rooker said:

"The business planning zones will provide a flexible planning regime to facilitate the rapid development of high-quality, high-tech business clusters and encourage investment for growth and regeneration."

Then, however, he said:

"I do not have any facts and proof to back that up, but that is clearly the aspiration."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 167.]

The Minister used the first of those sentences today—clearly, he had the same set of briefing notes as Lord Rooker—but I wonder why he left out that second sentence, which was very revealing about the ODPM's attachment to the clause.

The zones are completely unnecessary. Only eight have been set up in 10 years, with only four still working. Businesses do not want them. High quality, high-tech businesses in particular want to operate in a structured planning environment. Perhaps we should not waste our time, as hardly anyone will use the clause and no one will really care, but that is not good law, and the Opposition should not let the Government do something simply because it will have no effect. It is probably not worth pressing this to a vote, on exactly those grounds, but the Minister would do well to square up to the Chancellor and say that the measure might have made a good speech at the time but does not really merit a place in the Bill.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the clause, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's animadversions on my Department's level of enthusiasm for these measures. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked why we are making the change. The reason is that we consider this a matter for regional planning. I understand why the official Opposition oppose planning at the regional level, but regionalism was in many respects established under the last Conservative Administration, although this Government have carried it much further, with a genuine commitment to decentralisation. I cannot, however, understand why the Lib Dems would oppose such planning.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

How can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I would have thought that this was an area in which the argument was not about whether there should be regional planning, because the measure applies solely to such planning. We have heard that there have been only eight simplified planning zones in the past 10 years. Can the Minister predict how many there will be in the next 10?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Of course I cannot, but let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if this is a failure in policy, it is a failure of his own party's Government, as these measures were introduced under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Government remain committed to these proposals and I call on the House to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

After Clause 49

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 46 and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendment No. 47 and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I understand that amendment No. 45 was designed to address the concern that, when a local planning authority considers the length of time a planning application should remain valid, it will not always take into account such matters as the length of time it takes to assemble the site and organise funding. Currently, under section 91(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 18(1)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the local planning authority is required to consider "any other material considerations". If a local planning authority, in considering the duration of time needed for a planning permission, thinks that the time needed to assemble finance and land is relevant, that matter will be a "material consideration" to which the authority must have regard. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister will know that in Committee the concern expressed about the duration of consent was that, although it is currently variable, councils do not vary it. If we are frank about it, most of the planning officers are not aware that they can vary it, or of what counts as a material consideration. Is there not a case for inclusion of the amendment as a means of sending a message to planning officers that they can vary the length of the consent? Whether it is three or five years, they need to be convinced of the need to vary it. In Committee the Minister agreed to ensure that planning officers would be told once again that they could vary the length of time granted.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I share the hon. Gentleman's desire that local planning officers have proper access to information about the contents of the Bill and the powers available to them under it. I do not share his passion for loading everything—one is tempted to say "even the kitchen sink"—into the Bill. That tendency has re-emerged from our exchanges tonight. For that reason, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would leave out the suggested provisions, making the default period for the duration of planning permission and listed building consent three years. The position is that the Government proposed through clause 50 to reduce the period of validity of a planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent from five to three years. Local planning authorities will be able to agree longer periods where appropriate—for example, for complex regeneration projects. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

The clause also prevents a developer from seeking to extend a permission by submitting an application to vary a condition. Any developer wishing to extend the time limit will have to submit a new application for planning permission and the local planning authority will consider the entire application afresh. Reducing the default period for permission and consent from five to three years is a crucial part of our agenda to speed up the operation of the planning system. A three-year default period sends a clear signal about the importance of delivery. We are pressing local authorities to speed up their planning processes, and we are showing an even-handed approach towards developers with our proposal for a three-year default period.

Of course, circumstances can change and a three-year default period will allow changes to national guidance to take effect more quickly. We previously introduced an amendment whereby if planning permission were granted, but the grant of permission were subsequently challenged in judicial review proceedings, the duration of permission would be from the date of grant until three years—or other period as directed by the determining authority—after the completion of the proceedings.

The amendment was inserted in response to concerns raised by developers that the shorter validity period, coupled with the removal of the provision that enabled developers to extend the life of the consent, could mean that the validity period had expired before judicial review proceedings had been completed. During consideration of the Bill in another place, it was argued that even expert lawyers would find it difficult to calculate when judicial review proceedings would conclude. We have been persuaded by that argument, and we tabled amendments to deal with the problem—another example of the Government's fair-minded and reasonable approach.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 46 allows that where planning permission is granted subject to a three-year time limit by virtue of a condition imposed under section 91(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or by virtue of section 91(3), as amended in each case, and the grant or deemed grant of that planning permission is challenged, the period of three years is statutorily changed to a period of four years in relation to that permission. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 47 makes a similar change to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The Government have listened to criticism during the consideration of the clause, and we have proposed amendments to deal with problems arising from legal challenge. However, a three-year default period for planning permission is a central part of our programme of speeding up the operation of the planning system, and we are sticking with it. The Government therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos. 45, 46 or 47.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

It is a pity that at the end of these proceedings, the Minister has not listened to many of the outside bodies that expressed concern about the change. There is general happiness with the present five-year period. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) pointed out, there is already scope for planning authorities to vary the length of planning permission if they so wish.

The Government have on occasion overstated their argument about land banking. Indeed, most people who apply for planning permission with the intention of developing wish to do so as quickly as possible, but there are a vast number of hurdles to get over these days before people can start building, and sometimes planning permission is only the start of the process. People often find that things go rather slower than they had hoped.

If the reduction to three years is made, planning authorities may become more caught up with many more applications. Already, in the south of England, some authorities are having great difficulty in determining the applications that they already have within a reasonable number of weeks. The upside would be that authorities would get more in planning fees, but the downside would be that some hard-worked planning departments would have much more work.

I do not believe that three years is enough. There are a number of complications associated with development, especially with brownfield sites, and where land has to be decontaminated. The shorter period for planning permission could impact on the viability of many marginal and complex schemes. Funding would also be affected, especially where there is a mix between commercial and other development, and that could cause problems.

I do not believe that the Government have made their case. Almost all the outside bodies that have made representations, such as the CBI, the Law Society and the Housebuilders Federation, say the same thing. I again draw the Minister's attention to the letter from Michael Snyder, the chairman of the policy and resources committee of the Corporation of the City of London, who sets out the problems he foresees, and says:

"Not all commercial buildings will be vacant when planning permission is granted and achieving vacant possession takes time and invariably entangles developers in protracted negotiations. The position can be exacerbated where part of a site has to be subject to a compulsory purchase notice—compulsory purchase notices can themselves take up to three years to be finalised. Some schemes will also require road closures, which are of course subject to separate proceedings, adding to the delay."

We all know that there are particular problems in the City of London and other places in our inner cities where development is taking place, but I suspect that shortening the duration of planning permission will make life rather more difficult for developers in those cases. The City of London in particular has been very successful, because over the past 10 years nearly 50 per cent. of the City's 8 million sq m has been rebuilt or subject to major refurbishment. That shows a great deal of success in managing things under the current regime, and I wonder whether changing the length of time that planning permission lasts from five to three years will really improve the prospects for development, especially where there are complex and difficult sites to develop.

The Opposition feel strongly about this important issue, as do many people in the business community, and we may force the Minister into the Division Lobby over it tonight.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I support amendment No. 45, which seeks to make it clear to local authorities that they have to consider all areas when deciding the length of a planning permission. The Government may be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but I have more sympathy with them on this issue than the Conservative spokesman seems to have. There is a problem with land banking, and part of that problem is that 99.9 per cent. of applications for planning permission receive five years for consideration. Local authorities have the power to vary the period, but they never do.

The Government have decided that they need to tackle that and think that the only way to do so is to change the default period from five years to three. I have some sympathy with that idea, but if they are going to do that, they need to make it absolutely clear that local authorities can vary the period and that periods should on many occasions be varied to allow longer periods, particularly for complex applications or where, in a town such as Bath or York, there might be a reasonable expectation of finding archaeological remains, which is exactly the sort of situation in which a developer might reasonably expect to take more than three years.

The Government have a case, but they have pushed it too strongly without giving the other side. I have some sympathy with the reduction to three years, but the position would be more acceptable if amendment No. 45 were accepted, because that would make it clearer to local authorities that they must take all sorts of considerations into account, such as the complexity of a development or archaeological or environmental considerations such as a need to deal with contaminated land. All that should be taken into account in deciding whether to allow more than three years—whether it is five years or even longer in some cases, particularly if there is a need to put a financial package together.

The Minister needs to do a little more. He needs to give a little, and if he does, he may well find that opposition on this area will go away.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) over-egged the pudding when he said that there appeared to him to be "general happiness" with the existing provisions for consents of five years. In our consultation, there was substantial support for a reduction from five years to three on the part of local authorities and non-governmental organisations. I reiterate that we have offered considerable scope in the Bill and in our general approach for flexibility on the part of local planning authorities.

If I may say so without intending unnecessary provocation, in what was a somewhat cavilling speech from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—that was very uncharacteristic—he mentioned contaminated land, which is exactly one of the provisions that we accept may lead to an extension of the period of planning permission, which I think the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

How can I resist?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister has much knowledge of this issue, so can he assure me that included on the list of criteria alongside contaminated land will be the possibility of an archaeological find? Will evidence have to be provided, or will the mere possibility be enough? Such archaeological finds are fairly frequent in local authority areas such as Bath.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman offers an enticing prospect of interpretation and definition around the possibility or likelihood of an archaeological find. We would expect local authorities to show reasonable openness and flexibility in relation to potential developments, and that is well established in existing approaches to the granting of planning permission over various periods. We do not wish the Bill to challenge such existing practice.

The Government have shown openness in response to representations made in the other place on extending the period of permission in cases of judicial review. In general terms, the Government have sought to adopt an even-handed approach. The Bill offers a more democratic, more flexible and faster planning system. I must point out that in our final exchanges the Opposition parties have shown only limited commitment to those principles.