Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

So does he.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 126, in

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

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 127, in

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

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

Amendment No. 199, in

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

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

Amendment No. 128, in

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

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

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

Amendment No. 129, in

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

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

Amendment No. 200, in

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 131, in

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

Amendment No. 134, in

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

', and—

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 135, in

clause 5, page 4, leave out line 7.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

and, secondly,

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

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

Mr Terry Rooney (Bradford North, Labour)

It is tomorrow.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

''such other matters as are prescribed.''

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

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

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

Of course that will need their commitment.

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

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

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

The representations continue:

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

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

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

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

The document continues by stating that the way in which

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

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

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

''When the RPB''—

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

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

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

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 338, in

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

'( ) local authorities' Landscape Character Assessments;

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

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

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

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

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

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

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

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

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

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

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

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

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.