Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in

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

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 49, in

clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsections (3), (4) and (5).

No. 5, in

clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

No. 50, in

clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

'(7) The Secretary of State may only give a direction once he has consulted all the authorities specified in section 4(2) as well as the Regional Development Agencies, Regional Chambers, Government Offices and members of the public. All representations must be made public prior to such a delegation being made.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

To refer to the points of order, we would have plenty of time to reach clauses 12 and 13 if we did not have the guillotine motion. Neither the Committee nor many outside organisations will appreciate our not reaching those clauses, especially since they relate to the transition of county councils. I want to register my protest that the Committee will not be doing its job if we cannot get to those clauses.

The clause to which the amendments relate is very important, as it is the clause under which the Secretary of State must designate the regional body. That is part of the transition from the current system of local plans and county structure plans to regional planning. I made it clear that the Opposition do not agree with regional planning or regional assemblies. However, the Government propose them and we must see whether they can work.

In my opening speech, I also made it clear that we could end up with an awful mishmash of planning in this country if we are not careful. If referendums are held and we vote for regional assemblies, some areas may have designated regional assemblies, some areas may have designated regional chambers while others have regional development agencies or government offices. The Government will have to consider the matter very carefully, because according to which body is designated, there will be a different emphasis on how it carries out its work. Some bodies will have directly elected members, while others have indirectly elected members. In the case of government offices, there will be no elected members at all.

Under the clause, once the Secretary of State has designated one of these designated bodies, if we may call them that, he can give a direction to withdraw recognition of that body if he does not like it. It would be draconian to withdraw recognition of that body having designated it, particularly if it is a regionally elected assembly. The amendments' purpose is to probe the Minister on the circumstances under which he would withdraw recognition.

Amendment No. 49 would omit subsections (3), (4) and (5). There is some sloppy drafting in subsections (4) and (5). On careful examination, those subsections are tautological because the opening words of subsection (4)—''Subsection (5) applies''—refer to subsection (5) before we even know what subsection (4) says. What a way to draft a Bill.

Subsection (4) should have started, ''If the Secretary of State'' and gone on to say what subsection (4) will do. It would then make sense for subsection (5) to begin:

''In such a case the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions''.

The drafting is poor. As such, not only must we probe when the Secretary of State may give a direction. Subsections (4) and (5) are so badly drafted that they should be withdrawn at least until they can be corrected. They add further confusion to the entire process.

The direction given may recognise the regional assembly or the chamber as the RPB. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point. In the kind and helpful guidance that he gave the Committee this morning, it says that in every case in which there was no elected regional assembly:

''although since the chamber is likely to be the RPB this seems unnecessary.''

That indicates that if the direction given does not recognise the elected regional assembly as the RPB it recognises the chamber. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that this afternoon. It is an important point, and I wish to know whether we have chambers up and running in every region. [Interruption.] The Minister is scowling. I can probably find the reference for him when I finish speaking because I hope that I have underlined it. It is on page 3 in the paragraph that starts clause 5.3. If I have misunderstood the document or it is incorrect, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point in his reply.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am inclined to agree with the reasoning behind the amendments. If the Government are to proceed with the Bill as drafted, it must include those subsections. They allow the Government to give the planning powers to an unelected body, from which the Government can take away those powers. I do not want the Government to give them to unelected bodies; I only want the Government to establish them when there is an elected regional assembly. However, if the Government are to do so, the Conservatives' amendment would prevent them from taking those planning powers away from a regional chamber, a regional development agency or, indeed, the Government office and giving them to the elected regional assembly, which might come along later. I could not support that, because the powers must be in the hands of elected people.

The clause and the proposed amendments highlight the fact that the Government are seriously intending to set up RPBs that are not elected. They are going to establish them in the regions before the elected regional assemblies are in existence.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Law Society suggested the amendments? They are probing amendments. As he knows, an amendment is often tabled, with no expectation of acceptance, as a means of probing the Government's intentions.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I accept that and I am glad that the amendments were tabled. It brings us to the Government's clear intention to hand powers to unelected bodies. Later on we shall have to reflect on powers moving up from county councils, but the direction in which they are moving is irrelevant: the key problem is the existence of unelected regional bodies with planning powers. Ultimately, we understand that the Government want elected regional assemblies in all regions, but debate continues about the current boundaries and regions likely to be successful. It seems unlikely that referendums would be won in regions such as the south-east, the south-west and perhaps the west midlands.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

If I did not say so, I alluded to it—the power in subsection (3) will allow the Secretary of State to revoke recognition from a regional assembly as well.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I agree entirely. The Government have wrapped themselves up in the problem. I understand why they need the power: if they have given it to an unelected body, they will subsequently need to take it away and give it to a elected body. However, if the provision remains law, a future Secretary of State could take the power away from an elected regional assembly if he did not like the colour of the politics in a certain region. That might not be the Government's intention—the Minister will, of course, say that it is not—but the problem remains that some decades hence, a Secretary of State could, by direction, take the power away from an elected regional assembly.

The Minister must reflect on how to escape that conundrum. My suggestion is not to grant the powers until elected regional assemblies have been set up, but I realise that he will not accept that. Perhaps he will find some other way to avoid having that open-ended power in the long run.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am sorry not to have been present for the whole debate. I hope that I shall not go over ground that has already been covered.

Two other issues are relevant to the group of amendments, but first I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike, about amendment No. 50, which stipulates that the Secretary of State can give a direction, only

''once he has consulted all the authorities specified in section 4(2)''.

Section 4(2) sets out a list of authorities from (a) to (d). Having thought about problems over lunch, I tabled some amendments designed to change that list. At the moment they are not even starred amendments, but by Tuesday they will be relevant. I presume that they will be taken when we reach clause 4. I could explain the significance of amendment No. 50 and become involved in debating which bodies should have to be consulted. However, as the list in clause 4 is used on several occasions, and, as long as I can still discuss whether the list is correct when we reach clause 4, I will not need to trouble the Committee this afternoon. That is why I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. If an amendment to change the list is tabled and selected under clause 4, it will be perfectly permissible to debate it then.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

That is helpful. With the assurance that we can debate the matter later on, I shall not detain the Committee on amendment No. 50.

I shall speak to amendment No. 5. It is often held that the easiest sort of amendment to propose and talk about is one that changes the word ''may'' to ''must'', or vice versa, and I suspect that many such changes have been debated with tongue in cheek. On this occasion, however, such a change is important. We have debated whether it is right or proper that the Secretary of State should withdraw recognition or do other things. The Minister will comment on that. I will not repeat the arguments about why that is wrong—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said.

Let us assume, for the purposes of discussion, that the Government resist the amendments and that they will not listen to good common sense or wisdom coming from the Opposition Benches. The Secretary of State may, under the Bill, give a direction to withdraw recognition of a body and he could go on to do this, that and the other. Subsection (5) states that

''the Secretary of State may exercise such of the functions''.

That is wrong—[Interruption.] Allow me to continue—this is an important issue. If such a structural arrangement is to be put in place, if that will be required to happen region by region, and if the Secretary of State is to be given the powers, it is inadequate to say that he may, if he feels like it, withdraw recognition of the responsible body. If it needs to be done, he must do it. The word ''must'' is, on this occasion, crucial.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I apologise for not having spotted amendments Nos. 5 and 50 in the group. Amendment No. 5 is essential, because chaos would ensue if the Secretary of State were to withdraw recognition of a body and not take on its functions. In such a case, there would be nothing in place whatsoever.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am trying to get the Minister to accept that point, because he argues that the Bill is necessary and that the new paraphernalia are essential, and he will have his way because he has the majority of Committee members on his side. I am simply trying to help him, although I do not know why. I am, on occasions, a generous soul and I am trying to show him a flaw in his argument and his procedures. He will get his Bill, but in it the Secretary of State will have discretion whether or not to bother. The Government machine seeks to control everyone and everything, so I am offering him a way to get the Secretary of State under control and require him to do what other bodies are being required to do.

We are trying to be helpful. That may be novel to the Minister, but politicians everywhere are pragmatic on occasion. Here is an opportunity for him to win recognition and to excel in improving the Government's Bill by ensuring that they have in place the mechanism that they set out to achieve.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

The hon. Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I treat his kind offer with a degree of suspicion.

It is not appropriate to describe the amendment as a mishmash, or badly-drafted. I concede that what the hon. Member for Cotswold said about there being a clear and absolute role for probing amendments is true. Whether such amendments change things at Committee stage or subsequently in the process, they are often the most useful part of our deliberations. I do not have a problem with probing amendments, unless they are pursued to a vote or probed to death and then dropped.

Amendments Nos. 102, 49, 5 and 50 would alter the arrangements for withdrawing recognition from RPBs. Amendment No. 5 would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to exercise the RPB function when no RPB was recognised at the time. Amendment No. 102 would remove the Secretary of State's power to give a direction withdrawing recognition of a body as a regional planning body. Amendment No. 49 would remove that power along with the Secretary of State's power to exercise those functions of an RPB that he thinks appropriate if he has not recognised a body to act as the RPB, or if he withdraws recognition from an RPB and does not recognise another body in its place. Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult unitary, county and national park authorities, regional development agencies, regional chambers, Government offices and members of the public before giving a direction designating a body as a regional planning body.

It might help the Committee if I explain the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State is concerned to ensure that the bodies with responsibility for preparing revisions to draft RSS are appropriate

and representative of the range of interests in the region. In order to be designated as an RPB, certain criteria will have to be met. I shall return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about chambers shortly. The criteria currently envisaged, in line with the planning Green Paper, would be whether the RPB and the proposed steering group appointed to manage the preparation of the revised strategy are sufficiently representative; whether the RPB will consult a sufficiently broad range of regional stakeholders, including through focus groups or planning forums; whether the RPB will work sufficiently closely with all groups to ensure delivery of the strategy; and whether the RPB will be able to take a sufficiently strategic regional view, addressing difficult regional choices where necessary. PPG11 on regional planning already provides advice on most of the above and is to be further revised, as I said earlier. The Secretary of State will expect the RPB to demonstrate that it has had regard to that in applying for designation and can demonstrate that all four criteria are satisfied.

The provisions that amendments Nos. 102 and 49 would delete are there to deal with the possibility that a regional planning body ceases to meet the criteria, or, in some circumstances, that it fails to carry out its functions appropriately. The amendments would leave no means of maintaining the policy either on how representative an RPB should be or how inclusively it should carry out its work. That would not be acceptable.

The hon. Member for Ludlow made a point about future Secretaries of State taking power away from an elected regional assembly. A literal interpretation of the matter may—only may—be correct, but I should be astonished if by the time elected regional assemblies are up and running there were not a regions Bill of some description, which would be needed subsequent to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill and would, among other things, prescribe the provisions of the elected regional assembly in terms of the planning dimension, regional strategies and so on. It would not be appropriate to say that that is what will happen in future, nor would it be appropriate to consider where we are now in the context of what might happen in future. However, we shall return to the matter when we discuss the ongoing relationship between the regions and the local bodies.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

That is a literal interpretation of the position now and I accept that an appropriate Bill may be forthcoming. However, in case a minor point raised in this Committee has been forgotten by the time that Bill is introduced, might the Government be minded to consider changing the wording of this Bill on Report to make it clear that it is not intended that the Government should be able to withdraw the power when there is an elected regional assembly? I suggest that as a possibility.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Given our intended and declared policy in the Bill and elsewhere, our position is clear. The only circumstances in which that would not be duly modified would be if there were no subsequent regional assemblies Bill, in which case the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill would be redundant

because there would be no subsequent regional, democratic structure to be put in place. They are consequential on each other.

Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult certain local authorities and regional bodies before designating a regional planning body. I suspect that the amendment may result from a misunderstanding of how the process of designation will work. It will be for the regions to make proposals that meet the criteria for designation. It will be important for all the bodies mentioned in the amendment to be involved in discussions, but that should be done within a region and not by the Secretary of State, whose role is simply to assess compliance with the criteria and other guidance. Amendment No. 5 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to exercise those functions of a regional planning body that he thinks appropriate in the event that he has not recognised a body as the RPB for a region or he does not recognise any other body.

It is surprising that the hon. Member for Cotswold has proposed an amendment that would impose the very centralisation about which we heard so many complaints on Second Reading. Our position on regional spatial strategies is clear: while there is no directly elected regional assembly to take on the strategic planning role, it is right that the Secretary of State, who is directly accountable to Parliament, is ultimately responsible for issuing the regional spatial strategy. In that situation, we must achieve the right balance between that responsibility and securing and safeguarding regional input. I contend that the Bill strikes that balance.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

I read amendment No. 50 as another probing amendment, which is the reverse of the Minister's argument. It is trying to elucidate what the Secretary of State will do if he acts under subsection (3), which is the key point. Will he just roll over in the morning, think that he does do not like the flavour of his toast and sign the direction, or will he openly and clearly discuss the matter with bodies before signing it?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I shall answer that point later.

If the RPB does not meet or ceases to meet the main criteria laid down, there needs to be a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, with the help of regional partners, can take forward work on revisions to the regional spatial strategy. The region involved will have to propose a body that is fit for purpose in the event of non-recognition. As soon as it does so, it can return to exercising the functions of a RPB.

The matter is not as clear cut or as black and white as was intimated during the debate on the amendment. The RPB will not simply be choked off and no longer recognised. The Secretary of State will take on some, but not all, of its functions, which he will clearly have to do in the interim. There will be close engagement with all regional partners to secure a new or revised RPB that meets the criteria and is fit for the purpose, and the new RPB will get on with the job as soon as

possible. The RPB will not starkly be choked off, and the Secretary of State will not rub his hands in glee and say, ''I am now the RPB for a particular region.''

As soon as the region concerned proposes a recognised body that is fit for purpose, that body can exercise the functions of a RPB. Even if there is some delay before a region devises arrangements that satisfy the criteria, it may not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to exercise any of the functions of the RPB, and much will depend on the circumstances and the length of any delay. That is why a duty on the Secretary of State would be inappropriate.

I should also point out that if the purpose of the amendment were to leave the Secretary of State with no choice but to take on all the functions of the RPB, the amendment would not succeed. That is because he would be left with a duty only to carry out those functions that he thought appropriate, and not all the RPB's functions. In any event, if that is the amendment's purpose, there are some functions of an RPB that it would simply not be sensible for the Secretary of State to exercise, such as preparing a report on the implementation of the RSS. One has to legislate for what ones hopes would be the worst-case scenario, but the Bill is not about taking power back to the centre with glee. It is about trying to create RPBs that are fit for purpose and remain committed to the criteria.

As I have been doing all day, I assure the hon. Member for Cotswold that there is absolutely no prospect of the Secretary of State issuing revisions to the RSS without going through the necessary steps to create a sound document that takes account of the views of the community and regional and local partners, which backs up my remarks about balance. To do otherwise would directly contradict our policy, and the Bill does not allow it. Under clause 6, any person will still be able to make representations on the draft and the Secretary of State, in deciding whether to hold an examination in public, must have regard to the extent of the consultation on the draft.

The hon. Gentleman raised one other point about regional chambers during the course of our deliberations on the amendment. We made it clear in the White Paper that the intention is that the regional chamber should be the RPB, subject to the criteria outlined elsewhere in the Bill being met. To answer his specific point, there are relevant regional chambers in all but three RPB areas. I cannot read the stuff in front of me—it is all gobbledegook—but, in essence, it means that the three regions that currently do not have chambers will have them by spring. All eight regions will have chambers by then and they are the nascent and subsequent RPBs. I shall now read my briefing notes.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister needs time to read his notes. I am not sure that he was not reading his brief on the next clause about the revision of RSSs. I was becoming confused. Will he concentrate on the purport of our amendment? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State withdraw recognition of a regionally designated body?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I have made that clear. Recognition of a regionally designated body would be withdrawn if it was outwith or developed outside the four criteria set out in the planning Green Paper and was determined as not fit for purpose. It is as simple as that. Such matters are laid out clearly in the Green Paper. Such action would not be taken lightly or for a length of time. As for suspending RPBs or derecognising them for a length of time, there would have to be another sweep of powers in the Bill governing what the Secretary of State can or cannot do in the interim.

Even if derecognition took place, work would be undertaken closely with regional partners to reach the stage at which an RPB could be formed to meet the criteria and to make clear its purpose so that it, rather than the Secretary of State, could do its job in the regions. Otherwise, the Secretary of State will explore why the RPB did not meet the criteria and will decide what changes could be made to ensure that it meets them. To return to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, three of the eight areas do not have chambers, but will do so by the spring—I have just remembered that I have already made that point.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley? What consultation will take place and with whom before the Secretary of State issues such a revocation under the clause?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Unless I am mistaken, the short answer is none. It is clearly up the Secretary of State to determine whether the criteria are met and whether the RPB continues to be fit for purpose. I am not sure in what circumstances the Secretary of State will write a letter to each regional stakeholder asking whether it still regards the RPB as meeting the full criteria and is it still fit for purpose, and to give him a bell if it is not, but perhaps he will do so every three months.

Consultation, interaction and participation with all regional partners involved at the regional planning body level would happen only subsequent to derecognition to deal with the problems caused by the absence of fulfilment of the criteria or fitness for purpose, so that we can reach the stage at which the RPB is up and running, fit for purpose and can move on. There is nothing malign or sinister about that. Whether the RPB continues to be fit for purpose or meets the criteria will be subject to ongoing assessment and initial recognition. If subsequent worries emerge, they emerge.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

The Minister is saying that if the Secretary of State suddenly decides that he does not like the way in which an authority is performing and that it is not fulfilling the requirements, he will consult after he has made such a decision, not before. There will be no discussion with the relevant bodies that are affected by the decision. To use an antipodean phrase, the Secretary of state will simply pull the plug and then start consulting.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have been at this subject all day, I shall not be pedantic and quibble about antipodean roots of

''pulling the plug'', although I suspect that it was in use here before the antipodeans got hold of it. What the hon. Gentleman suggests will not happen. It sounds as though the Secretary of State will act in a malign manner, as though if he got up in a bad mood, he would say, ''Who should I deregonise or have a go at today?''

Clear criteria will be laid down. Everyone will be more than aware of those criteria. Everyone who is party to the feast will have been party to the whole recognition process and will know what goes into the recognition of a regional planning body. It will be clear to all concerned if the criteria specific to the regional planning powers and the role of an RSS are no longer being met and whether the RPB is fit for its purpose. The provision is not intended to be used maliciously or capriciously and it will not be used in that way. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

When giving the direction, will the reasons for withdrawal be given publicly?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

In terms of absolute clarity and certainty in my mind, I do not know the answer, but when I find out I shall let the hon. Gentleman know. It may be that that will be explored in regulations. I hope that the answer to his question is yes, and if it is not, I shall certainly get back to him.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister is being generous, which is helpful to the Committee, and I congratulate him on that.

The Minister said that he would not consult before a notice was issued for revocation. The nuclear option of withdrawal of recognition is a serious step and I should have thought that, in practice, any responsible Secretary of State would move heaven and earth to avoid a situation in which that was necessary. The maximum consultation, not only with the recognised regional body, but with Government offices, RDAs and other constituent tier authorities, would be highly desirable, if not necessary. Could the Minister respond to the scenario I described and my probing and explain how he sees the provision operating?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I will, but looking behind me rather than at the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that I have had a blinding flash of inspiration. I can now say without fear or favour that the answer to his question about whether the reasons for revocation would be published is yes.

Unreasonable use of derecognition could be subject to judicial review. We will not derecognise arbitrarily or in a vacuum. There is bound to be discussion, but ultimately the decision will be for the Secretary of State. I cannot foresee a situation in which there will not, at least informally, be the to-ing and fro-ing that the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested. He was not right this morning, but he is right this afternoon: derecognition is a nuclear option. It is a sledgehammer that would not be used regularly, but I contend—I hope that the Committee agrees—that it needs to be in the Bill because we must foresee as many circumstances as possible. Whether that to-ing and fro-ing would be formal when derecognising or revoking recognition from such a significant public

body will be explored further before regulations and guidance are published, as will the reasons for it. None the less, that does not affect the notion that the option should be in the Bill.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We have had a full discussion on this group of amendments. Again, I do not entirely agree with the Minister's explanation, particularly on amendment No. 5. If recognition is withdrawn from a regional planning body, the Secretary of State will have to take over some of its functions. The Government need to think more about that and, in particular, about amendment No. 5.

We have probed the matter in depth and to enable us to make progress I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in

clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

'(7) In marine areas, the Secretary of State shall exercise such of the functions of the RPB as he thinks appropriate'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.188, in

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

'(e) Any competent marine authority'.

Amendment No.184, in

clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end insert—

'(j) defining regions within the marine area for the purposes of this part'.

Amendment No.185, in

clause 11, page 6, line 26, leave out from first 'region' to end of line 27 and insert—

'—

(a) is a region (except London) specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c.45); or

(b) any part of the marine area.'.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Some members of the Committee may wonder where Chipping Barnet, which I have the privilege of representing, is. I announced earlier this week that I would not be seeking re-election—[Hon. Members: ''Shame!''] Many Members seem to think that Chipping Barnet nestles easily in the Cotswolds; in fact, it sits somewhat uncomfortably in north London. Some might ask why the Member for landlocked Chipping Barnet is moving amendments relating to marine areas. The answer is simple: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a prestigious and much-respected body, and in particular, its parliamentary officer, Sally Webber, got in touch with me and begat the four amendments that I have the privilege of moving. I shall do so as crisply as I can.

The purpose of amendment No. 186 is to make the Secretary of State the regional planning body for marine areas. The amendment would require him to exercise the functions of a regional planning body ''as

he thinks appropriate''. Members will know that clause 2 allows for regional planning bodies to be defined by the Secretary of State and that clause 3 requires regional planning bodies to keep the regional spatial strategy under review and to monitor and report on its implementation.

There is currently no one body with planning responsibilities in the marine environment. In the last Session, I was fortunate enough to steer through a private Member's Bill that transferred responsibility for marine archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage. However, a diverse group of institutions, which I will mention later, have responsibilities in relation to the marine environment. We do not propose to remove any powers from existing marine-competent authorities. However, the amendment would make the Secretary of State the RPB for marine areas and would require him to keep under review and monitor any RSS that he develops under clause 1.

Amendment No. 184 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that define regions within the marine environment for the purposes of part 1, so that RSSs, under clause 1, may be developed. The regions for which RSSs are to be developed would include marine areas by virtue of the proposed amendment to clause 11. However, the amendment to clause 11 just allows for regions within marine areas; it does not specify the boundaries of the marine regions, how big they are, or where they are.

We should remember the arguments between the Scottish nationalists and—perhaps—the rest of Britain, in which people asked, ''Whose oil is it?'' Such answers depend on the line marking the boundary between regions and how its angle in relation to the coast is defined. It could be quite a thorny problem. Clause 10 provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations for certain purposes in relation to persons exercising functions under part 1. Amendment No. 184 would allow the Secretary of State to exercise that power to define marine regions as appropriate through regulations. When marine regions have been defined, RSSs for each marine region can be developed.

Amendment No. 185 refers to clause 11 and defines regions for the purposes of part 1 as including any area of the marine environment. For the purposes of part 1, clause 11 refers to schedule 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 for definitions of regions. For example—I am perhaps looking rather quizzically at the back of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—the eastern region is defined as the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and the non-metropolitan districts of Luton, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. Well, we have our views about that. Incidentally, if one asks northerners to describe the south-east, they instinctively say, ''London and the counties surrounding it.'' Of course, under the regional structure that we have developed, Greater London is not part of the south-east. The amendment would allow a region to include any part of a marine area, but would not define the marine regions. That is left to the proposed

amendment to clause 10, which would allow the marine regions to be defined by regulation. Marine areas would be defined through an amendment to clause 72.

Amendment No. 188 would allow the Secretary of State, as the regional planning body for marine areas by virtue of the amendment to clause 2, to make arrangements for other competent marine authorities to discharge his functions. That is crucial because clause 4 allows a regional planning body to seek the assistance of local authorities, as defined in clause 4(2), to carry out any of its functions.

The amendment to clause 2 would make the Secretary of State the regional planning body for marine areas. However, the authorities listed in clause 2(4) have few, if any, functions that are relevant to a marine environment. The amendment would increase the scope of the authorities of which assistance might be sought to include marine competent authorities. They would be defined in an amendment to clause 72, which is titled ''Interpretation'', and would include Government Departments and competent authorities such as English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Council for Wales, sea fisheries committees and harbour authorities.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I wonder whether I might help my hon. Friend and cite an example of the new port that is being developed on the boundaries of Southampton and the New Forest. That is a typical example of a situation in which two regions might be crossed. It would be helpful to have a designated marine area so that one knew the precise area in which the development was taking place.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

The Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as am I.

My unusual eloquence is due to the fact that I have been speaking closely to a briefing by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I hope that the Minister, with his usual generosity, will be able to accept the amendments. I can take punishment but I do not want the RSPB's wrath to descend on the Minister. I hope that he will give a fair wind to the eminently sensible amendments.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I have the greatest respect for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; I am sure that we all have. If each political party represented in this Room could maintain and expand its membership as the RSPB has, the parties would be healthier than they are at present.

I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman—he is a near neighbour; we have but Hendon between us—has concerns about the marine dimension of our national life. I know that because I was the private Member's Bill Whip in a previous incarnation when he steered his Bill on marine archaeology through the House, and I know that he had great interest in the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), which died a death in the place that has red carpets rather than green. I take the thrust of the amendments seriously.

At the risk of arousing the wrath of the RSPB, I contend that the amendments and related ones to be considered later are strictly unnecessary. I shall come later to further reasons. The Secretary of State or other Ministers already have responsibility for controlling the full range of offshore development activities, including oil and gas exploration and production, offshore electricity generation, any other offshore developments affecting structures on the sea bed, coastal protection and harbour management including navigational dredging, ports and harbour development, developments relating to navigation and defence and, shortly to be enacted, offshore marine mineral dredging.

In the exercise of those various responsibilities, the responsible Secretaries of State and Ministers must have regard to environmental matters, not least—no red rags, please—to conform with the requirements of European directives on environmental impact assessment and habitats. It would cut across those responsibilities to give the Secretary of State with responsibility for land use planning an overarching responsibility for environmental matters offshore, and it is impractical to expect that such work could be done properly without involving the regional planning bodies and individual local authorities.

The present range of offshore consenting regimes, except that for oil and gas, is being reviewed by an official group reporting to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker. It is expected to report later this year. The review was announced last May at the launch of the marine stewardship report. I shall certainly find out more about the timetable, content and substance of that review, and when it is to report, and shall let the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and, through him, the millions of RSPB members, know my findings.

The review is examining a range of complex and contentious issues, including the feasibility of transferring some or all of the consenting powers from Ministers to local government, which is relevant to the amendment. That would imply a connection with the new regional spatial planning system. That would raise some complex legal issues and major matters of local government finance for the authorities and regions concerned. Additional costs to regional bodies and local authorities in framing plans for marine environmental protection would have to be met from other environmental programmes. It is not yet clear whether creating a patchwork of regional and local authority controls over marine areas would be the best means of replacing present unified national control. As I said, I shall further inform the Committee on that subject of the review. Other options, perhaps involving the rationalisation of some or all of the existing national regimes, might be more effective.

Another initiative of which the amendments take no account is the current review in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of marine nature conservation, which is concerned directly with the issues that the amendments intend to address. It would be premature to anticipate the work in hand to improve the effectiveness of the management of the

marine environment by creating yet another set of statutory powers to cut across existing ones. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. If he does not, I ask the Committee to reject it, especially in the context of the review being undertaken by my right hon. and noble Friend and what is going on at DEFRA. If I have anything of substance to report on either process before deliberations in the Commons on the Bill conclude, I shall get back to him. I take the marine environment and the issues surrounding it very seriously.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister has mentioned various offshore activities that are increasing, such as gas and minerals extraction, and I would add wind farms. We should have a mechanism so that the regional planning bodies can have an input into such developments, which are likely to have a considerable economic and environmental impact on their areas. That is why the RSPB is so concerned about them. We must ensure that there are additional safeguards so that local people, through the RPBs, can have some say on those developments. Will the Minister write to the Committee on the sort of input that the RPBs could have on such developments?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)

I shall be more than happy to do that, but only if it does not pre-empt the outcome of Lord Rooker's review. As I have said, part of his focus when examining many of the consenting regimes is to see whether a multifaceted national system, with a focus on the marine environment as a whole, is the most appropriate and efficacious way forward, or whether breaking down some of those elements at regional or sub-regional level is more appropriate.

Initially, let us say that I shall find out more details of the review, its substance and its timetable and

return to the Committee with them. It will then be for Committee members to decide how they want to take that information forward, in conjunction with the RSPB or otherwise. That would be appropriate. These are serious matters; we can perhaps explore how our actions in Committee best dovetail with the review and DEFRA's work on marine conservation by the time that the House has finished discussing the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I am grateful for the tone and tenor of the Minister's reply. I appreciate it very much, but should like to make two quick points.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is on to something with his point about the boundaries of the marine areas, mentioning the Southampton and New Forest area. That could be crucial. Secondly, I understand that the powers of the local authority or, in this case, regional planning authority go only—I can never remember exactly the right phrase—to the mean water level of low or high tide. I think that the Crown owns the beaches and shores. Perhaps that is a technical problem, but it is a legal one. There may be slightly more impetus behind the amendments that the RSPB have requested because of those legal factors.

I am grateful to the Minister for promising to look into the matter and keep the Committee informed. With the safeguard of discussion on Report still to come, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Dan Norris.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 14 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.