Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in

clause 12, page 7, line 13, at end insert—

'( ) the historic sites and monuments of the area;'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 178, in

clause 12, page 7, line 13, at end insert

'the historic environment of the area;'.

Amendment No. 40, in

clause 12, page 7, line 14, after 'those', insert 'or any other relevant'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 12, page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (2)(f).

Amendment No. 42, in

clause 12, page 7, line 17, at end insert—

'(g) the principal generation of employment in the area;

(h) the role played by the area in the economic and social life of the nation.'.

Amendment No. 43, in

clause 12, page 7, line 22, at end insert—

'(c) the effect such changes are likely to have on the economic and social development of the nation or on the planning of such development.'.

Amendment No. 44, in

clause 12, page 7, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We are now moving on to part 2, which will be the Bill's Waterloo. It is horrendously confusing, with different documents, frameworks and plans, all with competing authorities, all of which must be revoked, revised or renewed. It is not just me saying that; Friends of the Earth—I do not always agree with them, but they make a good point—say of the local development framework:

''The new local planning framework proposed in the Bill is complex and costly, extremely confusing in legal terms and ineffective in generating public involvement. Local Development Frameworks will require three yearly replacement, annual reviews and continual updating.''

We then come to the most important part:

''The administrative burden will be huge and make effective public consultation impractical. Instead of one plan with policies and a map''—

that is exactly what is proposed for Wales; why we have to impose all those different policies, frameworks and documents on England I cannot imagine—

''England will have a series of documents, including core policy, action plans and statements of community involvement. These documents are intended to have differing legal weight in decision-making and may have different adoption process. It is not clear what problem the Government is trying to solve through this new framework but the result is a confusing mess. The starting point for any effective planning system is structural simplicity.''

I have already cited Bernard Shaw in that respect. I cannot understand why the Government have come up with such a confusing system.

The Confederation of British Industry states:

''The Bill sets out broad powers to revise or revoke documents. It is important that an appropriate balance is struck between the flexibility to ensure documents can be revised and kept up to date and the certainty needed by business and others to be able to plan for the longer term.''

That is the context for the clause and the amendments. I call it a system of chaos and confusion.

Amendment No. 87 was suggested to us by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It would increase the profile and importance of non-statutory historic sites in local planning and, by extension, help to ensure that adequate expertise and resources would be directed towards their care and protection. I am sure that everyone on the Committee agrees with that. Those sites are important parts of our national heritage. Damage has been done to them in the past. Surely they need greater protection. If so, it is right to accept the amendment.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England comments:

''Non-statutory historic sites and monuments are an irreplaceable asset to the countryside and to urban areas, contributing to the character and historical resonance of their surroundings for visitors and those who live and work there.''

The CPRE believes

''that the recording and protection of these sites and monuments, registered in the Sites and Monuments (SAMs) register, would benefit from statutory recognition. The relatively low importance attended to such sites and monuments has in many cases contributed to a reduction in (often already inadequate) resources allocated to their protection by local authorities.''

If the Minister intends to resist the amendment, he will have to make a good case to show why it should not be in the Bill. At what stage will the subject I have raised be considered?

My hon. Friend has tabled many other amendments, but I should like in particular to discuss amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These concern matters that must be considered when the local development plan is being drawn up—or am I getting myself confused? Incidentally, perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to the local development framework, which was highly trailed in the Green Paper, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change''. I do not see the words ''development framework'' mentioned in the Bill. Instead, there are now to be local development schemes, local development documents and local development plan documents. Again, perhaps the Minister will explain to us precisely how those three mesh together.

If my understanding is correct, one could imagine a series of concentric circles. The local development scheme would be the largest, because that is the all-encompassing scheme. The local development documents would be in the next circle and finally, the local development plan documents would be the smallest circle—the kernel. If I am correct, that is a sketch of what is in the Government's mind. Quite why we need all those documents and plans, when we could have just one plan to be adopted, revised, revoked and all the other things that the clause allows for, I cannot imagine.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would insert into the Bill what might be contained in the documents. We feel that it is a key point that generation of employment in an area—its economic well-being and prosperity—should be a material matter to be considered. That is covered by the suggested new paragraph (g) that amendment No. 42 would insert in subsection (2). Our proposed new paragraph (h) would insert a reference to the role played by an area in the economic and social life of the nation. We are much more sensitive to social activity and social inclusion than we used to be. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us at what stage in the development of the plans that issue will be considered.

Finally, amendment No. 43 would insert a new paragraph (c) in subsection (3), relating to the effect that relevant changes would be likely to have on the economic and social development of the nation, or on

its planning and development. It is intended to deal with those two matters together. We need a little bit more certainty. The quote that I read out from the CBI shows that businesses are concerned about the uncertainty in this area of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to show how this complex area of the Bill will work. The Bill will have failed entirely if it does not produce a faster, more comprehensive result than the previous system.

One of the criticisms of the present system is that structure plans, unitary development plans and local development plans take too long to produce. It would have been possible to come up with a mechanism for speeding up the preparation of those plans under the present system, but the Government have decided to rip up the entire present system and introduce an entirely new, complex one. If the Bill results in a slower, more complex, less tidy result, it will have failed. That is the real challenge. The Bill has to stand the test of time. I predict that this area of the Bill will fail and that we will shortly be returning to amend it.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I shall talk about amendments Nos. 87 and 178 in particular. Broadly speaking, the amendments attempt to achieve the same thing. I prefer the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to

''the historic environment of the area'',

to amendment No. 87, which refers to

''the historic sites and monuments of the area''.

I am not an expert on drafting amendments, but I think that our wording is probably better.

The amendments are intended to create a statutory basis for sites and monuments records. The current problem is that local authorities hold sites and monuments records voluntarily; there is no statutory duty. The records are used in the planning process; they are consulted to establish whether plans to build houses or roads will affect historic sites. There is great public interest in such matters. After all, this is the era of ''Time Team'', which involves Tony Robinson being filmed running around fields digging things up. There is much more interest than there used to be, and perhaps now is the time to put the sites and monuments records on a statutory footing. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some thought to how that might be achieved, as the amendments might not represent the route that should be chosen.

Sites and monuments records serve two purposes. First, they assist the planning process—that is understandable—and secondly, they provide a local archive that can be consulted by researchers and members of the public. The records serve a double purpose. The fact that they are non-statutory means that they are often under-resourced and that quality varies considerably around the country. Some local authorities maintain excellent sites and monuments records; frankly, others do not do that to the same extent.

Changes to the county structure and the shifting of powers to the regional level make the matter more pressing. The need to consult the records must be put into statute because the planning tier at the regional

level will not hold those records. There should be a requirement to check the sites and monuments records, and local authorities should have to maintain those records to a certain standard. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not necessary and that there are safeguards elsewhere, but I would like him to address the key issue of how the requirement can be introduced on a statutory basis. It may well be that the Bill is not the best way of doing that and that it could be done through regulation or some other means. However, there is a weakness in the current system and a danger, as we move towards a regional tier of planning, that that weakness might lead to problems. This is the first time since I have been involved in politics that my degree in mediaeval studies has been remotely useful, proving that if one waits long enough, anything can happen.

I follow the reasoning behind the other amendments. I hope that the Minister will address them. It is interesting that amendment No. 44 was not touched on. It requires the planning authority to keep under review those matters in subsections (2) and (3) rather than the word ''may''. I was half expecting the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to make more of that amendment; it is very worthy. The historic environment is key. I hope that the Minister can assure us that it will be considered, if only to ensure that he does not find himself—I am sure that he would not wish to do so—with Tony Robinson beating a path to his door and wanting to know why the Government have created a situation in which many of our historic sites could be unintentionally destroyed.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to the debates about the monuments and agree with what is being said. However, for the moment, I should like to move on to amendments Nos. 40 to 44. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are a pair—I think of them as the Heathrow amendments, as the Committee will hear shortly. I shall deal first with amendment No. 40. Clause 12(2)(e) details what is included and then states that

''any other considerations which may be expected to affect those matters''.

I have no quarrel with that. It seems sensible to include considerations that will affect the list. The Government recognise at the beginning of subsection (2) what those matters include; there is no attempt to say that paragraphs (a) to (d) represent an exhaustive list of matters to be considered, it just says that they are some of them. Therefore, amendment No. 40 deals with an important point: subsection (2)(e) should say ''any other considerations that may be expected to affect those, or other relevant matters'', to make it clear that the considerations can go beyond that list. The Minister might say that that is not necessary. If he wishes to debate whether the amendment adds anything, I shall be grateful, because I think that it strengthens a weak area of the Bill. He might not believe this, but it is after lunch and I am trying to be helpful. The amendment would improve the Bill rather than weakening it.

Amendment No. 41 is a different matter. It seeks to delete subsection (2)(f). I know that we have discussed

the issue before, so I shall not rehearse the entire case. However, I shall never be happy to read that the Secretary of State is being given powers to prescribe what can be considered. So far as I am concerned, the purpose of primary legislation is for Parliament to say what is appropriate. We are debating paragraphs (a) to (d), and in a moment we shall come to two other amendments. Whatever the complexion of the Government, in the end there will be a parliamentary majority for the Bill, and that will say what should be considered. It strikes me as entirely wrong in a democracy to say that notwithstanding the fact that we have considered all sorts of facts, and notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has expressed its will about what should be considered, we shall enable the Secretary of State to say what is right and wrong.

Notwithstanding any of that, if the Secretary of State has powers to prescribe, he can say, ''I know that it says in the Bill that you are going to consider the size, composition and distribution of the area, but I say that you are not going to consider that because it suits my fancy.'' That is not democratic, so subsection (2)(f) should not be included. It gives powers to the Government. I tread carefully rather than use the jackboot phrase, but I think that the Minister gets a sense of where I am coming from.

On amendment No. 44, I appreciate that there are those who consider that anyone who would debate ''must'' and ''may'' is pedantic. I do not think that I can be accused of that. Subsection (4) states:

''The local planning authority may also keep under review and examine matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) in relation to any neighbouring area''.

I think that it jolly well should, rather than may, if it wants to. That is important. I use the example of Heathrow airport. Other regions may take a view on aircraft noise, but they should not be told that they may consider the implications for my region of taking a hostile stance towards Heathrow airport. I think that they must. The Government are right to say that regions should be invited to consider, but should go one stage further and say that they must do so in all circumstances. Considering does not dictate what the decision will be, it simply means that regions must think about the matter. Therefore, I commend amendment No. 44 to the Government.

I turn to amendments Nos. 42 and 43. I shall do my level best to keep in order when referring to Heathrow airport. It serves as the best example to support my points. Amendment No. 42 would add subsection, or whatever the correct title is, (2)(g). It would ensure that the principal generation of employment was included. It is easy enough for the Government to say that subsection (2)(a) refers to the principal economic characteristics, but that does not go far enough. The principal economic characteristic of my part of what the Government want to call the south-east of England is that it has a big airport in it. The fact that that is an economic factor is not sufficient when drawing up strategic policies. It is an economic consideration that generates, at a conservative estimate, 120,000 jobs. Its power of job generation as

well as the characteristic of it being an airport is the example that I would use.

I perceive a distinction between principal economics and the economic generation of employment. I raise that because at a strategic level, the generation of employment can easily fly in the face of matters such as environmental considerations. Policies are drawn up concerning environmental protection or the protection of ancient monuments, which is relevant to the Heathrow debate on runways because listed buildings are involved. I understand why people want us to consider the heritage of the country, but when thinking about strategy we should remember that the generation of jobs is often as important as the protection of ancient monuments. I realise that that will mark me out as a philistine, and I imagine that my mailbag will become larger due to certain pressure groups.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman should not lose sight of the fact that protecting the historic environment can create jobs. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and I share the Ironbridge gorge area as part of our constituencies. About 20 or 30 years ago, people barely considered it a historic site, but it is now a world heritage site that contributes dramatically to employment in the Ironbridge area. Perhaps the hon. Member for Telford has the figures. Clearly, concern for the historic environment led to an economic rebirth in an area that was largely derelict 30 years ago, Ironbridge has become one of the most desirable places to live in. The hon. Gentleman should take account of that example.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

My prediction was true: I have not yet received the letters, but I have had a telling off from someone with a legitimate point of view. I do not dispute the importance of heritage, but sometimes economic and employment generation is so crucial that in some places—not Ironbridge, where jobs can be created and the heritage preserved—it takes precedence over it. In certain circumstances, decisions about aviation could lead to the closure of Heathrow airport, and if that were to happen it could put 100,000 jobs at risk. I am gently suggesting that in debates about the historic heritage and monuments around the Hounslow heath area—now the airport—a different balance might need to be struck between jobs and heritage buildings. That is not a general observation, but we must not overlook the fact that the generation of jobs per se can become the most important of all the driving forces.

I know where I stand if I have to choose between protecting the jobs of my constituents—their future prosperity and their mortgages—and two or three listed buildings. I hope that I do not have to make that choice, but I may have to. We should not tie planners' hands behind their backs by saying that the generation of jobs should be singled out as crucial, but that consideration should be added to the list to demonstrate that, in certain circumstances, it should be placed alongside all the other factors. I go no further than that.

Amendment No. 42 would also add paragraph (h)—

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I want to intervene on my hon. Friend before he moves on from historic sites. My amendment is designed not to make the preservation of the historic site paramount in every case, but to build a statutory basis into the Bill so that preservation becomes one of the matters that has to be considered in planning applications. Sometimes historic sites are unique: once destroyed, they can never be put back again, which is why we should consider our heritage carefully, albeit in the context of overall economic development.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that I am not shifting policy in an unfavourable direction. If he were to press his amendment about monuments to a Division, I would be delighted and would enthusiastically vote with him. I would not dissent from anything said by my hon. Friend or by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I have simply provided an example of where other considerations could be more powerful than the ancient monument. I repeat that I draw no general conclusions and that I am not setting policy in general terms. I merely flag up in proposed subsection (2)(g) that the generation of employment can be crucial in specific cases. One has only to see the London docks or visit the pool of London for a meal and drink in the evening to discover what happens when economic factors and job generation are not considered. I do not want to see Heathrow become like London docks. It is an important strategic matter that we should try to take into account.

Amendment No. 42 would also insert proposed subsection (2)(h), whereby one of the considerations should be

''the role played . . . in the economic and social life of the nation.''

Let us continue to use Heathrow airport as an example. Both a strategic and a local case could be made that regional interests point in a particular direction. For example, local and regional arguments might suggest that it would be better to site runways somewhere else—whether Stansted, Gatwick or somewhere on the Kent coast.

In specialist, major job-creating cases, overarching national, economic and social issues often apply. It may surprise the Minister to hear me talk about social issues, as he might view social engineering as his business, but that is not necessarily right. It could be argued that in the regional context, we need only move runways, motorways or whatever somewhere else and all would be well. However, if a decision were taken, either in the regional or local interest, to put the runway somewhere else, the national argument would be that ignoring the case for Heathrow by opting for Stansted amounted to exporting jobs, opportunities and possibilities for British business to Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam. In other words, in taking such decisions, the national considerations go way beyond the regional ones.

The purpose of adding subsection (2)(h) is to flag up that national economic and social considerations will

sometimes be so affected by a decision that, notwithstanding good regional and local arguments, planners must be made to consider the national good. It may be unpalatable, but it is appropriate in certain circumstances.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

My hon. Friend adduces an interesting argument. Does he accept that one of the main reasons for the length of the terminal 5 inquiry was that the Government had not drawn up an airport strategy for the country? Would it not be better for these wider economic issues—particularly affecting airports, but also ports—to be considered in the round under a national strategy, which would avoid the sort of planning arguments that my hon. Friend mentions?

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

One certainly could debate the Government's inability to produce a national strategy for aviation, but going down that road might be judged out of order. I agree with my hon. Friend without subscribing to his view about what happened in the terminal 5 planning inquiry. I believe that the amendment applies to what happened. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, every head-in-the-sand anti-person who wanted to say, ''No, not in my back yard'' was allowed to run rampant across the planning system, adduce all the arguments in the list and declare that everything was dreadful. The net result was that the delays to T5 caused an enormous amount of damage to my constituency's economy. I fear that we may yet discover that they have caused an enormous amount of damage to the nation's economic, social and leisure interests. The amendment flags up the overarching interests of the nation—almost underpinning a strategy, if it is there.

As is now becoming clear, I make myself unpopular in certain quarters by arguing that. All that I shall say in my own defence is that I have espoused those views in my constituency over four elections, and I have been re-elected. I have made those comments about the economic interests of my constituency over four elections and I have never been attacked by the local Labour party, or by the local Liberal Democrats. From that I conclude that the majority of my constituents think in the same terms. That sometimes puts us at odds with all the fashionable planning arguments.

I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of what I am saying. If the way in which I have worded it does not appeal to him, he might like, between now and Report, to strengthen the Bill in another way and add to the list in subsection (2), which at present has paragraphs (a) to (d). The Minister should table other amendments if he will not accept mine.

Amendment No. 43 continues the train of thought and would add a paragraph (c) to subsection (3). Again, I want to bring in the overarching arguments of the changes involved. The amendment relates to the effect that such changes are likely to have on the area and the planning of that area. Again I use Heathrow as the example.

In a debate about runways, which is a hugely strategic and social issue in, say, the south-east of England, one could argue that, if there were a need for X number of additional runways, the requirement

could be met by putting them anywhere. One could then argue that the extra runways in the south-east region had been built—fine; that is what the Bill says. However, the changes that will follow from that decision are crucial. If one decides to put runways there, one must ask oneself what the result will be. If nothing is done to add to capacity at Heathrow, the net result will be a major decline in business at Heathrow or its closure. To develop that argument would be to try your patience, Mr. Pike, so I shall not do so, but if anybody does not accept what I say, I shall be happy to explain afterwards why the decisions on runways could have the most catastrophic effect on Heathrow.

It may be thought that what I am saying is unnecessary and not relevant to the Bill. It is nearly impossible to engage the public and the experts in the argument about the impact of the changes in economic terms. What will happen to the environment, noise, pollution or house prices is readily debated, but it is difficult to move the argument on to the economic effects of decisions.

The Bill focuses debate on the impact of change on the region. As I said earlier, my argument in support of including the nation in that is that the changes that follow decisions taken about runways in, for example, the south-east will be national changes. Indeed, they will be changes internationally. The experts who draw up the plans and try to weigh up the impact must, even at a regional and local level, ask themselves, if they want to put a runway here or there, or a motorway here or there, or whatever it may be, what the impact of such huge infrastructure projects will be on the nation.

In the example that I cite, a decision to undermine the success and the future of Heathrow would have the national effect of moving much of the aviation business out of the United Kingdom. That would have a major impact on other regions, on the prosperity of the country and on the public's opportunities to fly freely to wherever they wish. Therefore, amendment No. 43 would extend the criteria to be used when considering change well beyond regional issues to national issues.

I have focused on Heathrow purely because it is a constituency matter for me. I am conscious that a single example does not necessarily make my point. I could use other examples, but that would again try your patience, Mr. Pike, and that of the Committee. I am sure that I have said enough to explain what I am trying to achieve. I readily accept that I am not a parliamentary draftsman or a lawyer and that there could be far better ways of achieving what I want to achieve. However, I hope that we shall end up with a better Bill with some changes, because the Minister will at least have got the drift of my argument, even if he does not like the detail of it.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

A dilemma faces all of us who seek to promote, draft or approve legislation: we are trying to do two contradictory things. First, we want any measure that we wish to see on the statute book to be as simple and short as possible, so that our constituents can recognise it and accept what we are about. On the other hand, to avoid

vagueness and creating a goldmine for lawyers, we must necessarily go into detail and complexities. The Bill is a classic example.

I hope that you will not feel that I am straying from the issue, Mr. Pike, but I shall be brief. Let us suppose that we want to pass a law that forbids people spitting on the Queen's highway on the Sabbath. It is necessary that in that legislation we explain or define what spitting is, what the Queen's highway is and which day the Sabbath is. I hope that that is not a flippant way to put the dilemma, but makes it easy to understand.

Most of the amendments under discussion result from the authorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, and the more I listened to him, the more I agreed with what he is trying to do. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England has reminded us—I am speaking mainly to amendment No. 87—historic sites and monuments are non-statutory. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the recording and protection of those sites and monuments in the sites and monuments register is voluntary. I believe that it is timely now, and the Bill gives us an opportunity, to make those sites and monuments statutory. I agree completely with him on that.

We have a system of protecting buildings—the listed buildings system. It is worth recording that a building can qualify to be listed in a certain grade on its historic as well as its architectural merits. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that monuments can be protected. I know that gateposts can be. Therefore, the listed building concept goes wider than simple structures or buildings.

I agree with the CPRE that it would be timely if the Bill gave a statutory basis to historical sites and monuments. The first example of a cast iron bridge in the world at Ironbridge must surely be listed, but the hon. Member for Ludlow is right to say that it must be seen in the context of its site.

I would also like to draw attention amendment No. 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The two paragraphs in amendment No. 42, which my hon. Friend also tabled, should be added to paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2). That would be eminently sensible. The Minister might say that there is a limit to the number of things that we can include—I have some sympathy with that view—and he may think that paragraph (e) will cover everything. It says:

''any other considerations which may be expected to affect those matters''.

Most of what I was going to say has been said by previous speakers, but I wanted to ask whether there is a need for paragraph (f). The Government have to trust local planning authorities to decide what is important, significant and germane in their area. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State needs subsection (2)(f) to be included, and I would be interested if the Minister could say why that measure is necessary.

As I have said, although we need to spell out in more detail some of the provisions that we hope to put into the Bill, we should embrace any opportunity to make the Bill shorter, simpler and not unnecessarily long.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a clear and cogent case, as always. Does not he think that what he is saying is all the more important because the clause is basically just a statement of general principles? When we come to discuss later clauses that deal with the details of drawing up the plans, we will find that the Secretary of State has huge prescriptive powers on what those plans are to include. However, this clause just gives general principles. Surely the local planning authority should have powers to decide what general principles it will follow?

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

My hon. Friend says it all. He is absolutely right.

I would be interested if the Minister could say why the paragraph (f) is necessary.

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

Opposition Members have been ever so slightly timid, and have almost apologised for some of the examples that they have used in development of their arguments. I do not think that any of the examples were remotely out of place or irrelevant. We are perhaps blessed to have the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the Committee, because Heathrow is a good example, and one that I am sure will be referred to in relation to many subjects that the Bill touches on, and it is none the worse for that. The same goes for Ironbridge, and some other examples.

Perhaps surprisingly, I ask the Committee to resist all the amendments in the group, for reasons that I will outline. First, however, last Thursday there was talk of diktat and jackboots; today we have heard about Waterloo, chaos and confusion. Themes are clearly emerging from our sittings. I should be more than happy to present to the Committee, by way of help and guidance, a document called ''Development Plan System: Overview of Current and Proposed New System: What the Bill Does''. It is relevant to part 2 and subsequent parts and is not remotely political or partisan. It sets out as simply as possible what the Bill—including clause 12 on local surveys and subsequent clauses—does.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister may not be aware that I, for one, have that document. I suspect that it was sent to everyone, and I am grateful for that.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I need not comment on that.

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

That is very good, because I told my adviser last Thursday to send out the document. If that will not prevent chaos and confusion in the Cotswolds, there is not much that I can do about it, in terms of seeking help.

The Opposition Members' discussion shows that real tensions permeate through much of the Bill between a host of serious factors that local planning authorities will have to take into consideration. Those

factors might be economic or environmental, as we discussed on Thursday, or might have to do with historic monuments or environments. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments because, in the limited time that I have spent reading and interpreting Bills, I have discovered that, ironically, the greater the specificity in the Bill that surrounds particular duties, the less the flexibility permitted to local authorities.

The list in clause 12(2) is preceded by the word ''include'', so it is not meant to be definitive. It is meant to be drawn as widely as possible so that in the first instance, local planning authorities should be able to determine, within the context of the national planning framework, what to regard as important—I thought that I heard hints that the Cotswold planning authority or others were planning a unilateral declaration of independence, so that they could act completely outwith a national or regional planning framework. We will return to the subject of Heathrow when we come to clause 43, which deals with major infrastructure projects.

On amendments Nos. 87 and 178, the Government fully recognise the importance of historic sites and monuments, the historic environment in our national life, and our obligation to care for them—for our benefit and that of future generations. We also recognise what the hon. Member for Spelthorne meant when he mentioned the tension between the historic dimension and other considerations, not least economic development and jobs.

''A Force for Our Future'', published in December 2001, is the first statement of Government policy on heritage for a generation. It stresses that the historic environment can improve quality of life for all of us through the regeneration of our towns, cities and countryside, encouraging a greater sense of community and greater prosperity. Such regeneration works in the best interests of all concerned.

We fully agree that historic sites and monuments should be kept under review by local planning authorities. However, we do not agree that historic sites and monuments need to be listed in the Bill. Clause 12(2)(a) requires that authorities must keep under review

''the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics''

of its area.

Clearly, the existence of historic sites and monuments form an important part of both the physical and environmental characteristics of the area. Implicit in the clause, as in the Bill in general, is the notion that the Secretary of State has implied powers—we are even discussing the implicit powers of the Secretary of State—to issue guidance. We will certainly include guidance and an update of PPG 12, not least because we need to start including statutory consultees firmly in guidance.

We are already on record as saying that we will make English Heritage a statutory consultee. We anticipate that counties with expertise in dealing with historic monuments and sites will also be statutory consultees. They will look after that dimension. As and when plans such as PPG 12 are re-issued we intend for

there to be a statutory duty for local planning authorities to consult the historic sites register.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I hope that I have not interrupted the Minister's flow, but I heard him say that the county councils will be statutory consultees. Will he clarify that by telling the Committee whether that would happen only in relation to historic buildings and monuments? Of which part of the system—the local development scheme, the local development documents or the local development plan documents—will the county councils be statutory consultees?

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

I shall certainly return to that point. PPG12 will explicitly say that local or planning authorities have to consult the historic sites register. We intend to cover that and other matters in guidance through the revision of PPG12, which is the guidance specific to developing plans. I shall return to the consultee point, but I shall now go through the other matters.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The issue that the Minister has passed over is that sites and monuments registers are currently voluntary. They are not a statutory duty of the councils and therefore they vary throughout the country in how complete they are and how well they are drawn up. One of the arguments for putting that in the Bill is to enforce some degree of statutory obligation through the system—rather than saying that it is a duty to look at the register or to consult people who might look at the register, which is effectively the arm's-length approach—so that the records become a statutory part of the planning process, which they are not at the moment.

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

To all intents and purposes, the three or four measures that I have outlined in terms of amendments Nos. 87 and 178 are guaranteed to be dealt with in that fashion. I resist the fixation on treating something less than seriously unless it is explicitly in the Bill. If that were the case, the 20 or 30 copies of the Bill piled before me would be one Bill. I also resist getting lost in legalistic irony, but the greater specificity there is in a Bill, the more wriggle room we will give to those who seek to abuse our environment, historic or otherwise. Such cases end up in the courts, which use definitions of what is historic, what is a monument and what is consultation.

If we set guidelines and strengthen the statutory consultation process with groups such as English Heritage, the duty imposed on people by PPG 12 will not mean that they should consult the historic sites and monuments register if they get a minute; it will be a binding statutory duty to consult the register to see whether it is germane to any development or application. Far from wanting further to diminish the position of our historic environment, we take very seriously the concerns about it, and we seek to resolve problems. The underlying theme of the issues that I have raised on amendments Nos. 87 and 178 is also to be found in the other amendments.

I am loth to mention Europe, short of including in the Bill a list of impending directives or idiotic directives that may apply in 10 years. For better or worse, we live within a European framework, and that

is at least one of the elements implied by clause 12(2)(f), which refers to

''such other matters as may be prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) may direct.''

We are concerned about achieving good flexibility at the local level, so that planning authorities can, within the national framework, respond to their circumstances through their local development documents. We want consistency throughout the system, when it starts to bed down.

Amendment No. 40 seeks to ensure that all relevant matters are considered which may be expected to affect the development of the local authority area or the planning of its development. I agree with the intention behind the amendment, but it is entirely unnecessary. Clause 12 (1) imposes a general duty on a local planning authority to

''keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area or the planning of its development.''

That can include matters that do not directly affect the development of an area or its planning, but which can affect a matter that does affect that development or its planning. Therefore, it is unnecessary to set out separately a requirement to keep under review ''any other relevant matters'' because that is already encompassed in the general duty.

I am a legislator—for good or bad—and I am not a lawyer, but I believe that specificity further weakens a general duty. If a general duty is defined broadly and it is subsequently interpreted in a range of ways on one's own terms, as the relevant aspect of public policy is implemented, that is far better than having a definitive statement in a Bill that is loaded with specificity and gives legal room to all and sundry—and we know who all and sundry are in this context.

Amendment No. 41 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe or direct additional matters that specifically must be kept under review; I referred to that in the European dimension. I do not understand the intention behind the amendment. Although clause 12(1) sets out a general duty, we have sought to identify particular matters that should be kept under review by a local planning authority. I am loth to say that there is nothing sinister or devious in this, but that is the case. The power is not intended to allow the Secretary of State to impose unreasonable burdens on local authorities, but rather to ensure that there is consistency. There are matters that need to change over time as circumstances change: many of them will be covered by subsection (2), but others may not, and this power seeks to ensure that they will be covered.

Amendment No. 42 seeks to specify two additional matters that are important, but they are encompassed in a more efficient way in the broader sweep of subsection (2)(a).

Amendment No. 43 would require a local planning authority to make an assessment of the possible effect of changes that the authority thinks may take place in

any other matter on the economic and social development of the nation or the planning of such development. It is a strange amendment, although the arguments in favour of it were made well. Local planning authorities are under a duty to plan for their area rather than for the economic and social development of the nation. As a result, their focus is local rather than national.

It is not for Spelthorne, Hillingdon, Hounslow or any of other Heathrow-focused authority to seek to determine how national aviation policy, or any other national policy, is to be implemented or to seek to prejudge that policy. It would therefore be inappropriate for the local development documents of Spelthorne or Hillingdon to say categorically that there should be a new runway at Stansted or Gatwick in the interests of national aviation policy.

That would be as ludicrous as my London borough of Harrow—which is relatively close to Heathrow—suggesting that it would be in the interests of the burghers of Harrow if there were three more runways at Prestwick and one at Manchester, and that whatever Swampy says does not matter. The local focus should prevail, and although the national dimension must be taken on board, that must be done within the national framework of planning and of other matters that are germane, such as aviation policy.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

We are slightly at cross-purposes. The amendment does not seek to imply that the regional or local considerations of such authorities should lead them to pronounce on national policy. There is a distinction between having views on a national policy and saying that when making a local or regional policy one must take account of its national impact. There is a fundamental difference between what I hope that I have been saying and what the Minister is saying. I entirely agree with his comments on whether national policy should be made regionally.

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

In broad terms, that is the legal import of the amendment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and may or not agree with some of it, but it does not concern the thrust of the amendment, which is closer to my suggestion about Spelthorne coming up with a national aviation policy. I may be with the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the broad thrust of his argument, but what this amendment does is different, which is partly why I will resist it.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Will the Minister respond to my point on statutory consultees and county councils? I am sorry if I have jumped in during discussion of issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, but the Minister said, in relation to historic sites and monuments, that he will consider whether to include PPG 12 in the development plan guidance. Is the Minister planning to amend or update PPG 15, which relates to planning and the historic environment, and PPG 16, which relates to archaeology and planning? Is the current system working well? If not, does the Minister plan to update those two particular PPGs?

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

PPGs 15 and 16 will be updated in due course. In the planning Green Paper, we are committed to reviewing fundamentally all current PPGs. Both 15 and 16 work well. They spring from the existing PPG 12 rather than from what we are seeking to do now. Will they be updated and revised as a consequence of anything in the Bill? I suspect that the answer is no. However, plans will be developed in revised guidance, and if PPGs 15 or 16, or any other PPGs, need to be revised because of the final shape and form of the Bill, they will be.

I will come back to the hon. Member for Cotswold's point about county councils after discussing the last amendment in the group. I do not apologise for the delay, because these points are important. What we say about surveys now, and during our discussion of the next clause, as a prelude to discussions of LDV and LVF—and I assure hon. Members that I will come back to those acronyms—is worth dwelling on.

Amendment No. 44 requires a local authority to

''keep under review and examine the matters . . . in relation to any neighbouring area''

that may affect their area. Clause 12 makes that provision discretionary, for the good reason that it may be unnecessary for the authority. For example, when a large-scale development is taking place in a neighbouring authority area, that authority may have undertaken detailed work on its likely impact. Other authorities may then have access to that work. It would therefore be a waste of resources to require an authority to undertake its own work.

I have already been accused of being urban-centric. Simply because I was born and brought up in a place with no town or parish councils, I have been accused of being completely ignorant about town and parish councils. I hasten to say that I am not. However, I want to pursue an urban example.

The Kenton road is a lovely road that separates Brent and Harrow. Brent is the transport authority. If there is any significant development on either side of the road, the authority on that side of the road will take the lead. Fairly recently, there was a major supermarket development on the Brent side. Brent and Harrow council officers worked closely together, informally, and produced detailed documents that underpinned the ability of Brent officers fully to consider the application. The councils worked together but the documents were Brent documents. That kind of work would be perfectly acceptable under clause 12.

If amendment No. 44 were accepted, however, the Harrow officers would have to generate documents separately and independently, because the development would clearly have an impact on their area. The road is barely the width of this room. Having compulsion rather than discretion would be inappropriate. Hon. Members will know of other cases where two, three or four local planning authorities may well work together. To require all the LPAs to carry out detailed work to see how a development would impact on their area would clearly be inappropriate. Discretion is required.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On amendment No. 44, I would agree with the Minister if the word ''detailed'' were in the clause; it is not. The amendment would not require lengthy, detailed work to be done; it would just require the authority to consider the matter. If the necessary consideration were to mean reading the documents produced by Brent and saying, ''These are very wise. That is exactly what we would have done. We have considered them and we support them'', I do not think that that is excessive or unreasonable.

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

Far be it from me to undermine the hon. Gentleman—he has his draftmanship skills—but that is not the important thrust of the amendment. The use of the word ''must'' means that discretion is absolutely removed.

I do not wish to return to part 1, but I must explain that county councils will be statutory consultees for revisions of RSSs, and for preparations and revisions of all development plan documents. That will be made explicit in regulations. I am mindful of the fact that I have not done this today, and I apologise to the Committee, but as soon as I can I shall produce a route map for the secondary legislation associated with the rest of part 2 and subsequent parts of the Bill, as we did for part 1. I appreciate that that is easier for people—[Interruption.] If hon. Members already have one, I may be apologising unnecessarily. We feel that many of the genuine concerns are either covered explicitly in the wording of the clause, or will be covered by revised guidance, although I accept what the hon. Member for Cotswold said.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the Minister as he races ahead, but I admire the way that he is performing. I recognise that it is difficult for him to keep up with some of the points that we make in our contributions and in moving amendments.

Amendment No. 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, would leave out subsection (2)(f). I asked whether the Minister could explain why it is necessary for that to be included in the Bill. Although I do not expect him to give me an answer now, will he undertake to examine that point and consider carefully both my suggestion and my hon. Friend's amendment? Perhaps we could return to that matter on Report.

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

The hon. Gentleman may feel that that was the lamest of examples, but it is not for me or anyone else to prescribe, predict or indicate what the next round of European directives will bring in the next five or 10 years. That example was precisely what we had in mind. If I am able to come up with more substantive examples on, or a greater raison d'etre for, that subsection, I will happily do so, but the hon. Gentleman must understand the caveat, ''if I am able''.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I could respond to what the Minister said about all the amendments that I moved, but I will not because I am conscious of the time. I am also conscious that if I were to speak about the Minister's comments on Europe in respect of amendment No. 41, I would undoubtedly stray. Before you stop me, Mr. Pike, and before I say things that the official Opposition preferred that I did not say, I will refrain

from testing your patience, except to say that amendment No. 41 is good and ought to be accepted. I will leave it at that. I pass on amendment No. 44, except to say that I do not accept the Minister's justification for urging his colleagues to resist it.

I return, albeit briefly, to a substantial point regarding amendment No. 43 which was not ventilated either by me or the Minister, but which is fundamental to the debate. The Minister said that having listened to me, he had some sympathy with the argument that I was developing, which was that the wording of the amendment would achieve the exact opposite. To paraphrase what he said: the wording would not achieve what my argument was seeking to adduce. If that is so, I readily accept that my amendment is defective. I happily take that because I am more than content for the Minister to say that he would be willing to consider sensible wording at a later date. Given that he said that he sympathises with my arguments, I sincerely hope that he will have taken drafting advice before we discuss the Bill on Report and have found a formula that would achieve my aim.

In explaining his opposition to amendment No. 43, the Minister let slip in passing his observation that the decision about where to place a runway in the south-east of England was a national, not regional, matter, and that surely we would not expect the region to make such a decision. I had not contemplated that when preparing for the debate, but I have thought about it subsequently. A decision about a runway is not something that the Government should make in isolation, just as the Minister argues that it would be wrong for the region to decide on a national issue. It is possible to argue sensibly that it is wrong for the Government to make a regional decision, except in co-operation with the region that is affected.

That was the first part of my thought process when I contemplated what the Minister said. We shall need to check the Bill to see whether it covers that point. If the hon. Gentleman were right, he will have reinforced my concern about the Bill. No sensible Government would make a decision about a runway that affects a region without the greatest amount of consultation and co-operation with the region concerned. At present, when the region considers a runway issue—even if it were not making the decision—it would still be bound by the Bill in the consultation exercise that it enters into. When the Government say what they think should happen, the regional input will be controlled by the Bill, which sets out what the region can consider. In a debate in which the Government are taking the lead on the whole issue of where the runway goes, the region is much more likely to become parochial and forget the national consideration. It will be debating the matter with the Government, who, it will be presumed, are taking care of national considerations, and the region will be encouraged to be become more regional parochial in its arguments.

Even when the region is the only the consultee, it—as well as the Government—should be required under

the Bill to consider the national interest. Perhaps the Minister was right to say that the matter was a national, not regional, issue, but that does not undermine the spirit of my argument.

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

All I said in the context of whether the amendment was appropriate to the local development documents of the local planning authority does not change the interrelations between national planning policy, aviation policy and the other elements to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Far from decisions being imposed from above in the national interest, I am loth to say, given his experience of terminal 5 and Heathrow that such decisions about local needs and impacts will be handled through a planning inquiry.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I stress that I am not seeking to disagree with the Minister just for the sake of it, but he has opened up an issue that I do not have my mind around. It is relevant. Even if amendment No. 43 were defective, the hon. Gentleman has given us another reason why we should revisit the provisions of the Bill to make sure that, when the region is the consultee on issues that have the most powerful regional and local implications, the way in which the region and the local planning authority are required to respond takes into account the national interest.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

My hon. Friend will know that one of the proposals of the prestigious Town and Country Planning Association is that there should be an England spatial plan along the lines of that in the Principality under the powers delegated to the National Assembly for Wales. Does he think that part of the problem that he is addressing might be resolved if we moved an amendment to suggest that there should be an England spatial plan?

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I would need notice of that question. I am having sufficient difficulty getting my mind around what the Minister has been saying, let alone that. The suggestion would open up the whole debate about a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, which would certainly have me ruled out of order. The only region other than London that England is capable of being put into is the region called England, and to that extent I accept what my hon. Friend said.

I return to the Minister's points. I hope that he and his officials will reflect on the subject that he opened up. I shall try to give an example of what worries me about the current system. There is a debate about runways in the south-east. The choice of runways for the south-east implies that we are considering a regional issue because other regions have other runways. Under the current system in which the Government take the lead, the spectacle involving the consultation document means that every local planning authority and every county planning authority in the south-east says, ''Yes, we need it, but over there, please, not here.'' The local authorities—the districts or the counties—are not obliged to exercise their minds on the national interest. They may say simply, ''The Government are trying to do this, but we are here solely to represent the local interest against that of the nation.'' That is what worries me, and it is the issue that the Minister opened up. I am grateful to him for doing that but we will

have to think long and hard between now and Report about how we address it.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adducing the argument on amendments Nos. 178 and 40 to 43 in such detail. I do not intend to comment further on them.

I would like to say one thing about amendment No. 87, which relates to historic sites. I led the Minister into a little trap, which he fell into nicely, by encouraging him to issue extra guidance on historic sites. I draw his attention to his Department's document ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change''. Paragraph 4.57 says:

''However, there is far too great a volume of national planning policy PPGs on their own run to a total of 852 pages. The sheer amount of guidance imposes a considerable burden on the planning system and reduces its effectiveness as a means of communicating national policy priorities.''

I do not know whether the Minister would like to intervene and tell me whether he agrees with me. Given that the document was written by the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), perhaps the statement has been consigned to history. Perhaps the whole document has been consigned to history because paragraph 4.58 says:

''We think that Government is prescribing too much at the national level the extent of national guidance and the degree of detail in some of it serves only to stifle regional and local flexibility. Furthermore . . . much guidance is insufficiently focused with little differentiation between statements of policy and advice on process and best practice''.

The paragraph continues:

''the guidance is too prescriptive. Consistency in application of national guidance is valuable but too much prescription does not allow for local circumstance.''

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has been making that point in great detail. The paragraph continues:

''Some planning policies may be better made at regional or local level, rather than set nationally''.

We all say amen to that. The problem is that what the Minister and, especially, the Bill say are contrary to what is said in the Green Paper, which was a consultation document that received many replies. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister, who shakes his head.

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

I suspect that it does not say that at all. If the hon. Gentleman reads on, the document says:

''To that end, we propose to . . . review all PPGs'',

which I said that we would. Some we will review as a consequence of this Bill, and some as a consequence of the Green Paper. The hon. Gentleman will see at paragraph 4.61 that among the first we will look at are 15 and 16—planning and the historic environment and archaeology—to which he referred. I am still waiting for the trap I am supposed to fall into.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. Let us keep to the amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We shall wait with great interest to see whether these revised PPG are simpler and more consolidated. We will examine Hansard and what the Minister has said on every aspect of everything that we

have discussed so far in the Bill that will be further enhanced by PPGs and RPGs. I suspect that if he follows to the letter what he has said in Committee, it will be impossible for these new consolidated PPGs to be simpler than the existing ones.

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

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Pike, could I point out that as and where appropriate they will be changed and changed quite starkly into broader strategic policy statements? In some cases where they are very specific and technical, such as the PPG on waste and minerals, they run to a good many pages.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We have had a long debate. It is time that we moved on. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept any of our amendments, particularly those on the historic sites. These need to be defined in the Bill. Having said that and in the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

It is the Chair's view under Standing Order No. 68 that we have covered this clause fairly widely. I am not minded to take a stand part debate unless it is extremely brief.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful for your stricture and I will do my best to be brief as I always try to do.

It is worth bringing out the extremely important point that the Minister made almost in parenthesis. He said that the county councils would be statutory consultees in the drawing up of the RSSs, in their revision, in the drawing up of local development plans and strategies and the development plan documents. That was an important statement. I am sure that it will be greeted with some relief by those following the debate that those county councils are to be given that power. He said that it would be done by secondary legislation.

In view of the importance of that statement, may I urge the Minister to consider whether that should be put in the Bill? It is so important and fundamental, particularly in relation to the transition from county councils drawing up structure plans to the new plans that are envisaged by this Bill, to prevent haemorrhaging of skilled personnel from county planning departments. The Minister must ensure that that information is widely disseminated among those authorities. I should have thought that the way to do it is by considering amendments on Report or in another place to make sure that those are on the face of the Bill.

I have one other point to make in passing. The clause is a statement of principles. It does not have to be enshrined in any of the plans. I cannot quite see where it fits in the Bill. It is one of those things that the local planning authority has to consider but it does not have to put them into any of the plans or documents. Indeed, it is quite difficult to imagine how some of these things would be put in the local development frameworks, plans and development documents. While

we have had a long debate on the matter, I am still unclear how the clause links into other clauses.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I shall be brief, Mr. Pike. I just want to say that I very much welcome the clause. It is an integral part of the Bill. The Countryside Agency describes it as a real attempt to see that planning has an integrated approach on the environment and social, economic and employment matters. For too long our planning system has been separated from those other vital measures. As the Countryside Agency says, they were pigeonholed. Although I would like to have seen the clause strengthened in accordance with our amendments, I generally welcome the principle and the policy behind it.

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

If I had to choose between those two characterisations of the clause, I would go with the last one. The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The hon. Member for Cotswold thinks that it is principle, but nothing could be further from the truth. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet says, it is integral to all that flows from it in terms of the local development framework and local development documents. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. As I expect you are aware, we are expecting a vote downstairs at 4 o'clock. Would this be a natural point to stop?

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—