Clause 4 - Assistance from certain local authorities
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
10:15 am

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.115, in

clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

'(1) Each RPB should in relation to its region (or any part of it) consult an authority which falls within subsection (2) where such an authority has statutory powers relevant to the carrying out of any function that the RPB has.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

No. 114, in

clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (1).

No. 73, in

clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from 'consider' to end of line 39 and insert

'which authorities that fall within subsection (2) shall assist it in preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation of the RSS.'.

No. 120, in

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

'(2A) Any authority identified under subsection (1) above shall assist the RPB in preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation of the RSS.'.

No. 11, in

clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (5).

No. 210, in

clause 4, page 3, line 5, leave out from first 'council' to end of line 17.

No.215, in

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

'(e) a parish council.'

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

This important group of amendments deals with the role of other authorities when the RPB draws up its functions.

We and many outside bodies consider clause 4 to be one of the Bill's weakest provisions. Subsection (1) says:

''Each RPB must consider whether in relation to its region (or any part of it) it would be desirable for an authority which falls within subsection (2) to assist it in carrying out any function it has.''

That can mean all things to all people. It can mean almost zero involvement by any of the higher-tier authorities, or considerable involvement. We believe again that, instead of it being left to the RPB's discretion, it should be written into the Bill. The other authorities listed in subsection (2) should have a statutory involvement. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 115. It seems to me that in drawing up the RSS, the RPB will have to consult those various authorities, so why not say so in the Bill?

The amendments are supported by the Local Government Association and others that have a strong weight of experience in such matters. The LGA tell us:

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

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 in most areas.

The government has indicated that from next year, money currently going to county councils will go direct to Regional Planning Bodies. It is not explained how 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 councils resources in those 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 desire to have legislative clarity, vis-à-vis outcomes on elected regional assemblies, outweighing a desire to enact legislation to actually deliver on the ground?''

We have reached a very important point. The Minister must explain the roles that county councils and other authorities will continue to have. If their funding is to be drained away and functions be eroded, the skill and expertise that currently exists in county councils may well be lost. There will be a considerable deficit to planning if the bulk of that skills base is lost. The Minister needs to address that critical point, and he should explain how the county councils will make a smooth transition to the RPB without losing that skills base.

Further amendments deal with other functions, notably those in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)—a tautologically drafted set of subsections. Subsection (1) says that it is desirable for relevant local authorities to be involved. Subsection (3) says that the RPB will consider whether that is desirable and must ''make arrangements''. However, subsection (5) says that subsection (1) does not apply to any function under clause 5(6). Subsection (6) says that subsection (3) does not apply when the RPB makes arrangements between local authorities as defined by section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. Our amendment would qualify subsection (3), and make that part of the Bill easier for practitioners to understand. Even if one reads subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) carefully, it is extremely difficult to understand what they mean. Even if our amendments are technically defective, I urge the Minister to see whether those subsections can be redrafted to incorporate something more sensible.

Amendments Nos. 210 and 215 are important, particularly the latter.

The list of authorities in subsection (2) does not include parish or town councils. We specifically mentioned parish councils in the amendment but could have mentioned town councils as well. From

my experience, parish and town councils fulfil several functions extremely effectively, but their main function is monitoring local planning. After all, they are closest to what is happening on the ground. In many cases, the people involved know every inch of their area, and it is right that the Bill should state that they must be involved when RPBs draw up RSSs. I hope that the Minister will address that lacuna.

The involvement of county, district and borough councils is critical, and we believe that they should be given stronger statutory powers. Four authorities are mentioned, but there is no mention of unitary authorities. Our amendments seek to correct what must surely be a drafting error. If it is an error, I ask the Minister to accept our amendment so that those authorities can be included. After all, it would be impossible for RPBs to function properly without considering the unitary authorities in their areas. Perhaps the Minister would explain why they are not included in the list.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I would like to go a little further than my hon. Friend in supporting amendments Nos. 115 and 114. The measure transfers—I use that word advisedly—the planning powers and functions of county councils and other local authorities to regional assemblies or regional planning bodies. However, it is essential that county councils keep all their powers and functions unless and until regional assemblies come into being. It is wrong that the powers of directly and democratically elected county councils, metropolitan district councils and so on should be taken away from them and given to a body that is not democratically elected. I hope that the power of what I am suggesting will not be lost if, having made that fundamental point, I sit down again.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am sorry to have to intervene on my hon. Friend. Amendments Nos. 76 and 253 are intended to do exactly what he is suggesting, so we will have a full discussion on the matter in due course.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recognised that, but the matter is so vital that we should take advantage of any opportunity to mention it that can be gained within the rules of order.

I particularly direct my next point to the Minister, because we both have the privilege of representing constituencies in the Greater London area. I cannot understand why the Government have not followed the model for the Greater London area. The local planning authorities in Greater London are the London boroughs. As I understand it, they have lost virtually none of their powers despite the implementation of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which brought into being the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor. I shall rehearse very briefly what happens in London, and I hope that I will not give the wrong impression by trying to put it as simply and quickly as possible.

The local planning authorities—the London boroughs—keep all their powers. The Mayor has only one power in relation to planning. I accept that he

has transport powers as well, but his only power under town and country planning, or spatial development, relates to certain categories which, for want of ease, are the substantial planning applications in the Greater London area. He has the right to call in such applications and direct the local planning authority to turn them down. Even if an application is rejected as a result of a direction from the Mayor, or as a result of a local planning authority decision, the applicant has the inalienable right to appeal to the Secretary of State. There is an argument for saying that if one gives the Mayor certain powers, he should act as Secretary of State in the Greater London area. Whether or not one agrees with that, one can see that it is consistent and logical.

However, the Government have deliberately not transferred that power to the Mayor and the Mayor's role is therefore essentially superfluous. If he directs the local planning authority to reject the application—incidentally, a local authority can still say that it is minded to approve an application—the applicant can appeal to the Secretary of State. I am sorry if I have gone on slightly longer than I might have done, but this point is important. I do not know why that sort of situation cannot be replicated for the regional planning bodies.

In conclusion, RPBs should not be given any powers, except, of course, if there has been a referendum to decide whether people in that region want an assembly. Obviously, it would be wise to do preparatory work in that case. However, that relatively minor exception apart, no power should be transferred until regional assemblies are directly elected.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I support the amendments because they relate to what I think will turn out to be one of the more crucial elements of how things work in practice. The clause begins: ''Each RPB must''. That makes us think that the RPBs will have to do something dramatic. However, the next word is ''consider''. So, the RPBs do not have to do something, but just have to think about it. They need consider only whether it would be ''desirable'' for a local authority to assist them. The RPB could say that it did not want any assistance from any county council, metropolitan council or unitary authority. I am sure that the Minister will say that the Secretary of State would then be able to take away the powers of that RPB on the grounds that it was not consulting enough of its statutory consultees and not seeking enough assistance. That would be a rather convoluted way of doing things. Surely we want the Bill to ensure that RPBs work in conjunction with the counties, if they still exist, and with the unitary councils that will presumably exist, in one form or another, once regional government is in place.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)

Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, I am concerned, along the lines pointed out by the hon. Member for Ludlow, about London. It is fairly well known that there is a disagreement between many local authorities in London and the Mayor. The Mayor believes in tall buildings, but some of the local authorities do not. I foresee a situation in which the

Mayor will go ploughing in, taking little or no notice of local authorities, and impose things on those authorities. At the very least, local authorities ought to have the statutory right to interfere, put their point and explain it to the Mayor.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

That point is well made. The crucial point is that we need statutory involvement of the next tier down when the RPB is carrying out its function. We need that because the council, whether it is a county council or a unitary authority, will often have a better grasp of what is needed and wanted at local level. I not talking about local functions, but the RPB will be looking at housing numbers, airports, ports and major road developments, and those matters have a local impact. We need to bring information and views up from the bottom, rather than allowing the top to decide whether to listen to what the bottom thinks.

I find this part of the Bill slightly surprising. It is clear from what the Minister has said on previous clauses that he is in favour of involving different groups of people in such processes. He speaks well on that and I am surprised that he does not see that it is important to insist on councils being involved.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is making cogent points. He has already agreed with me that it is important that the Bill should produce a system by which local people can feel ownership of the planning process. We have failed to convince the Government that they need to produce a statement of community involvement. If local people do not feel that the councils closest to them—parish, district, borough and county councils—are properly involved in what they perceive to be a remote regional process, they will feel very alienated. For that reason, if for no other, it is important that local authorities should be involved.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I concur completely.

The amendments are relatively modest. They do not seek to put draconian burdens on the regional planning body. They say that the RPBs should consult, but only where the authority

''has statutory powers relevant to the carrying out of''

the RPB's function. That does not put an over-onerous task on the RPB. Under amendment No. 73, the RPB would have to consider

''which authorities that fall within subsection (2) shall assist it in preparing, keeping under review and monitoring the implementation''.

That is relatively modest and again uses the word ''consider''. The amendments perhaps do not go as far as I should like them to, but they are supported by the Local Government Association and, as I understand it, quite a wide range of councils in that association.

I say to Labour Members that, after the Bill is enacted and if the amendments are not accepted, people may visit their constituency surgeries in a few years' time saying, ''We don't like what the region is doing—what can be done about it? Can the local council say anything?'' They will have to turn round and say that the local council cannot do anything because the region can ignore it if it wants to. The result will be that local people will find, exactly as the

hon. Member for Cotswold said, that they have very little ability to influence the RPB's work, particularly where the RPB is a regional chamber, not an elected regional assembly. If we get elected regional assemblies, at least local people will have the right every few years to throw out its members if they are upset by decisions on local planning; but they have no control whatever over the people in regional chambers. Especially in their early years, RPBs should have to consult and work with—work with is the important point—lower tiers of authorities.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I shall speak first to amendment No. 11, because I want to be sure that I wholly understand the position. It has been made clear that the whole clause is woolly and urgently in need of sorting out. The amendments, similarly, take some working out.

I think that my understanding of the clause is right. We have discussed at some length subsection (1) in relation to whether assistance should be sought from other bodies. Amendment No. 11 would remove subsection (5), which says:

''Subsection (1)''—

that is the issue of working with other people—

''does not apply to a function of the RPB under section 5(6).''

I take that to refer to what is now clause 5(6), and I see nods in various places. If that is not correct, what I am saying will not be relevant.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

It is correct.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I have seen enough nods, Mr. Pike, to understand that I have got it sorted out in my mind.

We therefore need to look at clause 5(6), which says:

''When the RPB has prepared a draft revision, the report to be prepared under subsection (4)(b) and any other document to be prepared . . . it must—

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

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

That is what clause 5(6) requires the RPB to do.

Clause 4 says, ''You should consider consulting''. We believe that that is not strong enough. We have been round that argument. The present debate is about ''You must work with other people'', so why does subsection (5) say ''Even if you should work with other people, when it comes to clause 5(6), you don't''? That is why I wanted to be clear that I had it right.

Clause 4(5) says that, when one turns the page to clause 5(6), whatever may have been said about working with other people does not apply to this part of clause 5. Why? We are saying that working with other people is not adequate. The Government are saying, ''You don't need to do it at all in certain circumstances''. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on amendment No. 11.

I turn to amendment No. 215. The Bill provides many points on which we could give some discussion to parish councils. If you will allow me, Mr. Pike, to say all that I want to say in one go, I shall not need to debate the matter again. We need to think seriously about parish councils. It is tempting, when one reads

the list in clause 4(2), to say, ''Who cares about parish councils? They are tuppenny ha'penny outfits, sometimes representing only a few hundred people. What can they contribute to the great scheme of civilised 21st century society?'' I went through those arguments many times during my years in local government.

Of all bodies, I believe that the parish council should be at the top of the list. Successive Governments since the 19th century have tinkered with local administration. We have been through the gamut of sanitary districts, urban sanitary districts, urban districts, rural districts, county councils, metropolitan this, and metropolitan that. We have just reached unitary authorities when, lo and behold, regions become the fashion.

The one thing that marks out all the great and good authorities listed here and all others since the 19th century public health movement got going is that they are artificial, which is why they do not work and why we regularly have to create something else.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Before that.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

My history is not as good as it should be.

The parish is the one expression of natural self-identity in local government. Artificial bodies come and go, but the parish remains. In debates of this kind, I always predict that if, after we are all long gone, we were to come back from the churchyard after 300 years to sit on a Standing Committee, the parish would be the only thing that we would recognise about local government. It will still be here and everything else will have been changed according to the fashion of the day.

We therefore need to understand that if we are to get plans for people right and if we are keen to use vehicles—particularly if the Government are keen to go into social engineering—we need to understand what natural communities want for themselves and what they see for themselves. The only way in which it can be done is by talking to people at parish level, which is where one finds the reality of a community. The higher up the food chain one goes, the further one gets from ordinary people and the more likely one is to deal with what politicians want, which is often not what ordinary people want. Before one knows where one is, one gets into what the technical experts want, which nobody else understands.

Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, one can also get into the realm of what pressure groups want. The further one goes up the great organisations, the more artificial and removed from natural communities they become and the less they represent what people really want. Amendment No. 215 would put the parish council, which is not just a tuppenny-ha'penny outfit, on the list. It is one thing that we can do to ensure that the system produces what people want. Some might say, ''Ah, the parishes do not have the experts or the offices.'' That is exactly the point. The people who contribute at parish councils are ordinary people

whose minds are not clogged up by planners who offer them all sorts of advice.

Amendment No. 215 is worthy, and I urge the Government not to dismiss it out of hand as a debating point. I should be interested to know whether they believe that parish councils should not be considered and why that might be. I hope that they will accept amendments Nos. 215 and 11, or at least explain why amendment No. 11 is not necessary.

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

Clearly, this is another important debate. I am mindful of the time, but Opposition Members have made plenty of comments that I need to address.

Clause 4 hangs together naturally with the rest of the Bill. Whatever difficulties people have with clause 4, it is inappropriate to consider it in isolation. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Ludlow to suggest that clause 4 somehow means that an RPG can dismiss or totally ignore local councils. Clearly, it cannot ignore them, not least because of the functions outlined in clauses 2 and 3, and it is entirely in error to suggest that it can.

On a more specific point, the definitive list of unitary authorities includes county councils, metropolitan district councils and district councils for an area in which there are no county councils—that is it. The only bodies missing, which would clearly be inappropriate in that list given what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, are London boroughs. It is totally unnecessary to add ''and unitary authorities'' because there are no unitary authorities that do not come under those four headings. It is wrong to suggest that there is a ''lacuna'' in the list.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I shall ask the following question quite innocently. My sister, the successful politician in the family, is the deputy leader of Windsor and Maidenhead unitary authority. Does Windsor and Maidenhead come under that list as a metropolitan district council?

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

As I understand it, it is a district council where there is no county council. There are districts with no counties, counties with no districts, metropolitan district councils and London boroughs. That is the extent of the unitary level of local government in this country. There is no need for a catch-all unitary phrase beyond that. Unless someone among those to my left, whose presence in this Room we do not recognise, falls over, I shall maintain that.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am slightly bemused by that. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on what Herefordshire is. It is not a county council, before he says that. It is called Herefordshire unitary authority because it serves the functions of a district and county authority. Counties exist only where there are district councils underneath them. They are part of a two-tier function. Herefordshire and Telford are unitary authorities. The latter was taken out of Shropshire county council and became a unitary authority; it is not called a district council.

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

With the best will in the world, may I say that the hon. Gentleman has only half an hour left

in which to be bemused in the morning sitting. Unless I hear the thud of someone fainting to my left, I can say that he is absolutely right. Without the other unitary elements, Herefordshire is under law a county council without districts or the other way round, although it may not deem itself so. Name is not important. The status is statutory and it is a district with no counties. There we are.

Acclamation and reinforcement of what I say is extremely comforting for me as a Minister. It is when my officials start writing faster, and shaking their heads that I worry, which is why I never look at them.

The clause is fundamental to the two key principles of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said. First, there is a need to achieve only two levels of plan-making: strategic and local. Secondly, there is a need for clarity about responsibility and accountability. Although much of what the hon. Gentleman said underpins what we say about the relative strengths and functions of the system as it is and the transformation of that system, I suspect—as we will discover later—that this is not the appropriate place to debate county councils.

Amendment No. 115 would make it compulsory for a regional planning body to consult an authority that falls under the remit of clause 4(2) where that authority has statutory powers relevant to the RPB's function. The change is entirely unnecessary.

Authorities, or any other body or person, will have a statutory right to make representations on draft revisions to the RSS. At the discretion of the person appointed to hold the examination, those authorities will be able to participate in examination in public of the draft revision, and they will also be made statutory consultees in the preparation of RSS revisions. That will be done, as I said earlier, through secondary legislation.

County councils in two-tier areas will continue to be responsible for minerals, waste and transport planning. In that context, and in that of the criteria to which I referred earlier in the Green Paper relating to the drawing up of RSS, and taking due note of all regional players and stakeholders and other regional factors, bodies that have statutory responsibility for minerals, waste and transport planning will be at the heart of the process. They must be. I will stick my neck out and say that if a Secretary of State approves an RSS or RSS revision where there has been no consultation or collaboration with a statutory body that is responsible for minerals, waste and transport, there is but a slim chance that that RSS would be nodded through or approved.

Amendments Nos. 114 and 73 are closely related. The first would leave the RPB with no duty to consider whether it would be desirable for authorities to assist it. The second seems to presuppose that it would always be appropriate that one or more of the authorities should assist the RPB in carrying out its functions. The key to the clause is the carrying out of those functions. Neither amendment would be acceptable. The RPB has responsibility for preparing draft provisions to the RSS and is best placed to judge what, if any, assistance it needs. Neither the duty to

consider that issue, nor a requirement always to obtain assistance irrespective of its value would be sensible.

Amendment No. 120 would impose a duty on authorities to assist if the RPB requested. The difficulty is how to compel an authority to provide assistance when it has refused to do so through a voluntary agreement. I have never come across an effective partnership in which one party is there by force, not through free will. I do not think that that would be workable in practice.

Amendment No. 11 would remove the prohibition on an RPB arranging for an authority to carry out the functions in clause 5(6) on its behalf. Those functions are publishing a draft revision to the RSS, publishing the report of the sustainability appraisal of the proposals in the draft revision, publishing any further documents relating to the draft revision required by regulations under clause 5(5)(b) and submitting those documents to the Secretary of State.

As I have emphasised, we attach serious importance to authorities' contributions to the RPB's work, but it is vital to guarantee true regional ownership of the key regional strategy. That means reserving certain key functions to the RPB itself. Amendment No. 11 would allow the RPB to abdicate all responsibility. It would not have to take final responsibility for draft RSS revisions, the report of sustainability appraisal or any other documents required by regulations. Instead of a proper regional strategy, we could end up with an amalgam of policies prepared by individual authorities, which would—perhaps this is the purpose of the amendment, although I am not suggesting that—directly undermine the principle of having two tiers of plans, strategic at regional level and local at district or unitary level.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

All that the Minister has just said about amendment No. 11 would be true if clause 4(1), to which it relates, were about passing over the responsibility for something to somebody else. I can well understand the argument that if a task is passed over, ownership is lost. However, clause 4(1) is about assisting the RPB to do something, not about someone else doing something instead of the RPB, so my argument on excluding assistance surely stands, and the Minister has addressed the wrong point.

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

Absolutely not. The heart of the point is the revision of the RSS under clause 5(6), which is excluded. We are clearly saying that although there may be assistance, there are statutory duties that it is incumbent on the RPB to fulfil. That is the only body responsible for revisions to the RSS. That must be the case, if the points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold on ownership of the process are to be sustainable throughout the system.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Surely that is not logical. I shall repeat my question. Why is it appropriate for a body to assist in the drawing up of the plan but not to assist in drawing up the revision? Where is the difference? I am trying to get the Minister to comment on that, not on ownership. If assisting in drawing up the original plan is not a loss of ownership, how in heaven's name

is it a loss of ownership to allow someone to assist in its revision?

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

Because, as I said quite clearly earlier, once the RSS is in place, it is the duty of the RPB and only the RPB to maintain the integrity of the RSS, review its implementation and come forward with any revisions. As we said under clause 3 and parts of clause 2, it can do that with proper participation and involvement from others but, ultimately, the RPB has statutory duties and lives or dies by its achievement of those duties. It can have assistance en route but must be held accountable in the first instance for its statutory duties in the Bill.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

That does not answer the question at all. I shall try once more. Where is the distinction between the plan and the revision of the plan? If it is sensible to have assistance in one activity, we are surely entitled to an explanation of why assistance is to be banned in other activities. It does not undermine the integrity of anything to get help from other people; it jolly well ought to improve it.

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

It is not banned, in any way, shape or form, in clause 4, clause 5 or anywhere else, for relevant bodies to assist in the drawing up of the revision or anything else. What I am clearly saying is that the revision of the RSS as a whole is the statutory duty of the RPB and no one else. The Bill's exclusion of functions under clause 5(6) only emphasises that point.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Again, I simply cannot follow that. Clause 4(5) does indeed ban the seeking of assistance with a particular function because it excludes functions under clause 5(6) from the assistance-seeking provisions. It is wrong for the Minister to assert that there is nothing in the clause that bans anyone from doing anything. If I have misunderstood the meaning of clause 4(5), would he provide an explanation? So far, he has not in any way contradicted my understanding of it.

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

The only prevention or ban in the Bill, as I have tried to say, relates to the discharging of the RPB's statutory duty. The Bill prevents assistance in the publication and submission to the Secretary of State of the draft revision of the RSS, because that is very specifically the statutory function of the RPB. That is the import and effect of all the different cross-references between Bills.

Nothing in the Bill prevents assistance simply in drafting informally or otherwise considering subsequent revisions to the RSS, but the element of the statutory function, the core of the two-tier regional and local planning system that is to be put in place, cannot be usurped or passed on to anyone else. It must be discharged by the RPB.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

That would be a splendid argument about statutory duties if it were consistent. As I understand it, the body has a statutory duty to produce the original plan, but clause 4(1) says that it can seek assistance in carrying out that duty. The Minister is having difficulty in persuading me that the statutory duty of providing the plan would be

undermined by seeking assistance. Let me try again: what is the difference between the statutory duty of revising, in which assistance is inappropriate, and the statutory duty of producing the plan in the first place, for which assistance is considered desirable?

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

I suspect that, given the time, I shall have to live with my disappointment at not having persuaded the hon. Gentleman, and move on.

Amendment No. 215 would add parish councils to the list of authorities that an RPB must consider when deciding whether assistance in carrying out its functions would be desirable. I am happy to say, as Opposition Members have said, that I have a very high regard for the excellent job that parish councils do. I would not seek to put in place arrangements that in any way undermine the important role that they fulfil.

However, the amendment borders on the absurd. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that RSSs are concerned with planning at specific strategic levels. The functions of an RPB primarily relate to keeping the RSS and the plan of development and the matters that affect it under review, preparing draft revisions of the RSS and giving advice to others to assist in implementing the RSS. Authorities that assist the RPB in carrying out such functions would need to have experience and expertise in such areas—as the hon. Gentleman foresaw. With the best will in the world, parish councils do not have that experience and expertise.

Parish councils have no statutory responsibility for planning at either the local or the strategic level, and are not required to have any formal expertise in planning. Therefore they would be unable to undertake survey or review functions or prepare draft revisions. Their focus and expertise is on local rather than strategic issues. That is absolutely right—it is the core of their strength. At no point does the Bill detract from the provisions already in the planning system for parish councils.

In addition, proposals in an RSS will rarely, if ever, be expressed in terms of parish areas. As a result, policies in an RSS will not be for parish councils to implement. That does not mean that parish councils will have no input to draft revisions of the RSS. We want to achieve wide community involvement in their preparation. Parish councils will be able to make representations on draft revisions to an RSS through the consultation on proposals, and may have input through district councils and other upper-tier authorities on working groups that are preparing draft revisions.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I fear that when the Minister reads Hansard and reflects calmly on what he has just said, he will discover that he has insulted every parish council and councillor—because the argument adduced for not putting them on the list is that they are not intelligent or expert enough, and that they have nothing to contribute.

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

Rubbish.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The Minister said that parish councils did not have the expertise. It is as if one must be a technical expert to organise aspects of people's lives in

the future. I find that insulting, and I suspect that many parish councillors will feel deeply insulted by the Minister's comments.

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

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is getting tired. He spent all Thursday putting words in my mouth and now he is doing it again, to a ridiculous extent.

I said that the parishes had no statutory duty relating to planning at local strategic level and were not required to have any formal expertise in planning. Authorities assisting RPBs to carry out that function need experience and expertise in those areas, but with the best will in the world, parish councils simply do not. If the hon. Gentleman is offended by that, tough. The consultation role of parish councils at local level throughout the country will be enhanced rather than otherwise by the provisions in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman made an entirely spurious point.

Nothing in the amendments would add to RPBs' ability to fulfil their statutory role or to the provisions to allow county councils, metropolitan district councils, district councils and national park authorities—they have an important role in planning matters but there is not enough time to go into that—to assist RPBs. In that context—forlornly, I suspect—I ask Opposition Members not to press the amendments, because they would add nothing to the power and ability of the authorities that they seem so concerned about to influence RPBs or RSSs as they suggest. If anything, the amendments would detract from their ability to do so.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

This debate has been an enlightening experience. The longer the debate continues, the more hostages to fortune the Minister gives. His comment that amendment No. 215, which would include parish councils, borders on the absurd will enrage members of parish and town councils throughout the country. I do not know where the Minister has been during his eleven and a half years on a planning committee, but if he has not found out about the considerable expertise and knowledge on those parish and town councils, he has not been living in this world.

The clause is weak enough as it is. It merely states that RPBs must consider—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I shall give way in a minute.

The clause does not even say that RPBs must consult, which is what I would have preferred. Surely RPBs would be very foolish if they did not consider well constructed and well thought-out representations from individual parish and town councils when a large development was about to affect their area.

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

I shall add another hostage to fortune for the hon. Gentleman: the world in which I live, as he knows, is a London borough where I was a member of a planning committee for eleven and a half years—and where there is no such thing as a parish or a town council. That is just for the record.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Game, set and match. That shows how little knowledge the Minister has of the rest of the country. The Bill does not primarily cover

London; it primarily covers the rest of the country—the eight regions. The Minister has admitted how little knowledge he has of those other areas. People will listen to, and read, these exchanges with great interest, and they will hear what the Minister has to say. In failing to consider a more important consultative role for county and district councils he has failed to consider the expertise that is available in those authorities. He has said not one word about how he will maintain the skill base and expertise within county councils. Unless planning officers in those authorities receive some reassurance fairly quickly, that will drain away and the system throughout the country outside London, about which he knows nothing, will suffer. The Minister's consideration of and reply to these amendments is wholly inadequate. I feel very strongly about the matter, and urge my hon. Friends to support me in pressing the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in

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

'(e) A unitary authority.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.289, in

clause 15, page 9, line 7, at beginning insert 'A unitary authority or'.

Amendment No.290, in

clause 15, page 9, line 18, at end insert 'or unitary authority.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

This is a group of simple amendments. There seems to us to be a lacuna in the list of authorities in clause 4(2), as unitary authorities are not listed. Having heard the Minister's explanation for that, and having, perhaps prematurely, become involved in the argument on the previous group of amendments, I am prepared to sit down and let the Minister give us an explanation, which I hope will be adequate. Then we can move on to other amendments.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I fully accept what the Minister told us earlier—that a unitary authority is defined in subsection (2)(c). I suggest that he either change paragraph (c) to read ''a unitary authority'' or at least, if there are district councils in an area in which there is no county council other than unitary authorities—this is where I think it would be wise to expand the Bill—add to that paragraph the words ''including unitary authorities''. The phrase ''unitary

authority'' is far better known than the rather tortuous definition in the Bill.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I too shall be brief. The Minister was kind enough to say that I was right earlier this morning. The piece of paper that he was handed was absolutely right, in that the legal definition of districts without counties is exactly that, although most of the councils concerned like to conceal the fact.

I was always under the impression that the two exceptions to all the other rules that the Minister has correctly explained were first, the City of London, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and secondly, the Isles of Scilly. Can the Minister reassure us that the definitions in the Bill include the Isles of Scilly council?

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

I have no idea about the Isles of Scilly—but without a doubt I shall find out in a minute.

There is no such term as ''unitary authority'' in primary legislation. To add unitary authority as an additional definition would be irrelevant, because it is not a recognised concept in primary legislation; it is merely a device used by the local government boundary commission and others to determine what an authority does.

As I have said, there are four distinct types of unitary authority. The only three that are relevant to the clause are in the Bill. London boroughs are the fourth type. For those reasons, and those that I mentioned earlier, it is inappropriate to accept the amendments. They would add nothing to the Bill, except a phrase that does not exist in any other primary legislation. I suspect that we would then have to produce a schedule the size of a telephone book that explained what we meant in the Bill by the term ''unitary authority''.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I confess that I did not know that unitary authorities were not mentioned in any other legislation, so I gratefully accept what the Minister says, and I thank him for explaining that. I also remind him that the Isles of Scilly are dealt with in clause 81, which specifically refers to clause 4. That may be helpful to him.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for thanking me for the help that I gave him, and in return I thank him for the help that he has just given me in pointing to clause 81. The pleasure, as an ex-Whip and as a Minister who deals with knives, is that one goes with the knife at the time, and rereads the Bill at weekends when one has time.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Having heard the Minister's explanation, and particularly the fact that there is no statutory definition of a unitary authority, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I call Mr. Clifton-Brown to move amendment No. 74.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Because of the pernicious timetable, I want to use our final few minutes to

discuss the next group of amendments Mr. Pike, so I shall not move amendment No. 74.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

That is fine.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

'(8) Where no elected regional assembly exists, the relevant Structure Plans or Unitary Development Plans (Part 1) should continue to be prepared by the responsible local authorities.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 253, in

clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—

'(8) In regions where no directly elected assembly exists each RPB must attempt to make arrangements to permit any authority which falls within subsection (2) to assist it in its functions by preparing sub-regional strategies consistent with and subsequently, for inclusion within, the RSS.

(9) In regions where no directly elected assembly exists each authority which falls within subsection (2) must assist the RPB by preparing sub-regional strategies in conjunction with other authorities which fall within subsection (2) as determined by the RPB.

(10) Section 5 (3) will apply to any authority carrying out its functions under subsection (9).'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Committee members have mentioned the interim period before any elected regional assembly exists. We feel that the regional chambers' lack of democratic accountability will be a problem. I have already stated that many of the chambers will contain indirectly elected members. County, district and other bodies will propose representatives to the chambers, so they will not be properly democratic.

We feel that it is not reasonable for a regional planning body to assume large powers—a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet touched when we discussed a previous group of amendments—until the region gets an assembly.

The amendments seek to prevent those powers from coming into effect until the people have had a chance to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly. I remind members that to set up a regional assembly is a considerable process: the Government must take soundings; then they must draw up proposals for unitary authorities; and then they may hold a referendum. A regional assembly will come into operation only when people have voted in that referendum.

With a huge upheaval in the planning process being proposed, and given the huge centralising powers that the RPB has, particularly as the Minister refuses to allow any statutory consultation with the lower-tier authorities, it is all the more relevant that those powers should not come into effect until the regional assembly is up and running.

I cannot stress enough that if people are to feel ownership of that system, if they are not to be alienated from it, and if they are not to feel that the Secretary of State and some remote regional body are imposing on their local areas regulations that they do not like, they will become more alienated from the democratic process. We cannot be surprised that

turnout drops election after election. There must come a point at which democracy will be in peril.

The House must put in place structures that local people feel that they can really control and influence. My real fear is that people will not feel that they have control over their planning system because of the Bill's centralising tendency. They may not come back with a vengeance against that system immediately, but they will in some years' time. I suspect that some future hon. Members will be back in some future Committee Room to try to start the whole process again or radically to overhaul it.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments. I am not confident that he will, because he seems to want the centralising tendency all the time. However, the Opposition have a duty to ensure that democracy is alive, vibrant and kicking.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. In a matter of moments we shall discover why it is entirely wrong to programme Bills. When it comes to guillotining this part of the Bill, my colleagues and I consider it entirely wrong that any clause that has not even been considered in Committee should stand part of the Bill. Therefore, we should like to have Divisions on each of the clauses that have not been considered. This is an abuse of democracy; it is crazy, and we now see the Government exposed for what they are.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. Under the Standing Orders of the House, I must put a series of questions. I need to do that now. There will be two Divisions only—one on the amendment that has been made and one on the clauses.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.