Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

clause 13, page 7, line 34, leave out from 'area' in line 34 to end of line 35 and insert

'or the planning of its development'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 45, in

clause 13, page 7, line 39, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. How many hon. Members constitute a quorum?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Five people in front of me.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I make the quorum, then.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

No, there are six people in front of me.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

So if my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and I withdrew, we would not have a quorum. That would not be helpful at this stage.

The Local Government Association suggested the amendment to us. It is intended to probe county councils' proposed role in surveys for local development purposes and to clarify what is meant by ''a county matter''.

The LGA says:

''County councils currently have a duty to prepare a community strategy to set out a vision for the development of their community. Major services, such as transport, education, waste management and social services are all provided directly by county councils. The government's stated desire is for important service delivery areas to be integrated to solve complex problems and create better outcomes for local people, businesses and the environment.

In this context, a wide monitoring role is essential for the planning and development of core county council services, for the development of county community strategies and successful Local Strategic Partnerships.''

The Government have put great weight on such strategies, and local authorities in my area have spent much time and involved many stakeholders in drawing them up. They are very useful.

The LGA continues:

''County councils have traditionally provided the bulk of the expert contribution and monitoring effort to underpin both regional planning guidance and local plans. Monitoring and policy staff, or the resources for them, do not currently exist at regional or local levels in most areas.

The LGA's view is that the government is taking unnecessary risks with county council monitoring resources and expertise by removing their wider statutory monitoring role and restricting it to purely county matters. The reality is that, under the new system, individual district councils will continue to seek county monitoring support because they might not have the resources or expertise themselves. The danger is that as a result of the government's proposed reforms, county councils will be unable to justify dedicating significant resources for this purpose.

Again, these proposals seem to be driven by the desire to seek clarity of roles in a system with unitary councils under elected regional assemblies, leaving an imperfect and inadequate set of arrangements for the areas retaining the current structure, which is most of the country.''

As I have said before, it is important that we maintain the county strategic role during the transition, because it has been a vital part of the planning function in this country. If the message from the Committee and the Government is that the Bill will diminish and reduce the importance of that function, county councils' skill base will disappear.

I am critical of several things that Gloucestershire county council does, but strategic planning is not one of them. I know several of the council's strategic planning officers, and they have considerable expertise and perform an especially valuable function in my area. We have a large area of outstanding natural beauty and we have conservation areas. There are many listed buildings and minerals considerations. Two motorways run through the county, and there are rail links. It is a strategic area between the south-west and the midlands. Gloucestershire county council performs a valuable role. The amendment to probe county council functions is especially important.

Amendment No. 45 would remove subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) says that

''The Secretary of State may by regulations require or (in a particular case) may direct a county council to keep under review''

certain matters. The amendment is designed to delete centralisation by the Secretary of State yet further, because we do not think that that is necessary. Subsection (4), through good drafting, refers back to subsection (3); paragraph (a) says:

''it is immaterial whether any development relates to a county matter''

and paragraph (b) says:

''if a matter which is prescribed or in respect of which the Secretary of Sate gives a direction falls within section 12(4) the county council must consult the local planning authority for the area in question.''

I am not exactly sure what subsection (4) achieves, but no doubt the Minister will tell us. My cursory reading of it indicates that the Bill would be simplified, and the functions and powers of the county council would be more precise, without it, but the Minister will give us a better explanation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view of the amendments. He told us before we resumed our sitting that he had good news for us, so let us hope that he is going to accept amendment No. 122. That would be a first in this Committee, and a real triumph.

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

The amendments concern county councils' survey functions. I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen carefully, because although I shall not go as far as he wants, I think that I can go at least half way.

Amendment No. 122 would make two changes to subsection (1). It would delete the words

''in so far as the development relates to a county matter''

and insert the words

''or the planning of its development''

in their place. The deletion of that phrase is not acceptable. It might assist members of the Committee if I explain the intention behind subsections (1) and (2), and therefore why the words are necessary. The Bill provides for a county council survey function to underpin the continuing responsibilities of the shire counties for county matters, which are mineral and waste development, in essence. Many tried to dismiss the key functions of mineral and waste development as irrelevant during the debate that preceded this Committee, but they are important, and it is appropriate that counties continue to carry them out.

County councils have to keep the issues that might affect development relating to a county matter, as defined in the clause, under review for

''so much of their area for which there is a district council''.

As part of that duty, a county council must keep under review the matters set out in clause 12(2) and (3), as the hon. Gentleman said. A county council may also keep those matters under review in relation to a neighbouring area if they could affect the county's area. In doing that, the county must consult the appropriate local planning authority. That is important, because county councils will have a duty to prepare mineral and waste development schemes and, consequently, local development documents under those schemes.

With regard to the second effect that amendment No. 122 would have, there might be merit in including the words

''or the planning of its development''

in subsection (1). Clause 13(1) is intended to be the counterpart to clause 12(1) on local development surveys as regards the continuing responsibility of the shire counties for county matters, and one would expect that if those words are included in clause 12(1), which they are, they should also be included in clause 13(1). I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and I confirm that I am happy to take that issue away for further consideration. I cannot, of course, accept half an amendment, and we would rather the words that the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete stayed in clause 13, but I am more than happy to ensure that the words

''or the planning of its development''

are included, too, as they are in the preceding and complementary clause. That, however, is the extent of the surprise that I promised the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment No. 45 would remove the Secretary of State's power to require a county council to keep under review matters that he specifies and to make the results of the review available to such persons as he specifies. Ironically, rather than adding in any way, shape or form to the planning functions or the planning integrity of county councils—or dealing with the real concerns about the planning skills base at that level, which I share—the hon. Gentleman's amendment, by removing the Secretary of State's ability to broaden the areas that the county council should keep under review in its survey, would have the reverse effect. It would undermine any broadening of the county council's role beyond minerals and waste. I ask him not to press that amendment—in the same spirit as I allowed the other half amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

What with the earlier announcement about the county councils being statutory consultees, and the part acceptance of amendment No. 122, it seems that the Government are beginning to have second thoughts about the role of county councils, which we welcome. Will the Minister say what he has in mind for the regulations mentioned in subsection (3) on broadening the role of county councils? We have not seen the draft regulations, and it would be useful to know.

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

I am happy to do that. Subsections (3) and (4), which amendment No. 45 would delete, are important, for the reasons that I have outlined. They will enable the Secretary of State to make the regulations that the hon. Gentleman referred to—or in particular cases, to issue a direction to require county councils in two-tier areas to keep certain matters under review.

Those matters will sound familiar—we are nothing if not consistent—as they are the principle physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area, the principal purposes for which land is used, the size, composition and distribution of population, and communications, transport systems and traffic. We have already discussed all those key elements, which are at the root of PPG12.

Subsection (4) makes it clear that that function is not confined to county matters, as would be the effect of the half accepted amendment No. 122; it also

imposes a duty to consult if any regulations or directions relate to matters in neighbouring areas.

The powers are necessary as a safeguard when counties are best placed to collect and disseminate certain types of information for their areas—for example, because of economies of scale—but when that would not otherwise occur. As I said earlier, I am happy to consider adding the suggested phrase to clause 13(1)—not least to provide consistency with clause 12(1). In essence, the elements in PPG12 are those that we would seek to use in connection with the references to the Secretary of State.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Will the Minister clarify one other function in which county councils are involved, which is transport? For example, they have a considerable involvement with buses and bus routes. What role will the county council have in transport and in drawing up local transport plans?

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

As I have said, if the Committee rejects amendment No. 45, the broader issues of the transport system—traffic and so on—could be encompassed; the provisions would go beyond the authority's specific planning functions concerning waste and minerals. As far as I am aware, the county councils' current transport functions persist, and there is no intention to diminish their role. In view of the abundant generosity of what I have said, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendments. I promise faithfully to reintroduce at least half of one of them.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Some general issues in the clause go beyond the amendments, so I will not contribute to the debate on them as they would be better raised in a clause stand part debate, unless you disagree, Mr. Pike.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I will allow a clause stand part debate, but I am mindful not only of our previous debate, but of our remaining business. The Chair must make a judgment in order to make progress, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Pike. This has been a useful and concise debate on an important clause. As half a loaf is better than none, I am grateful for the Minister's concession that he will table amendments on Report to make clause 12(1) consistent with clause 13(1) and include the words of amendment No. 122.

Many people reading Hansard will be extremely grateful for the Government's rethinking of the powers and functions of county councils. That is especially important if it helps to retain skilled personnel in county planning departments. I accept the Minister's benevolence, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Clause 13 is the clearest evidence we could have of a Government struggling with the concept of the county council as they embark on a fundamental review of the planning system based on their beloved artificial regions. It would be better to remove clause 13 from the Bill and start again. The Government have two realistic choices, and thus far they have been prepared to go for neither. County councils must either have a full role, or the Government should get rid of them altogether and deal with local and regional planning authorities. We can not be left with something in between, as clause 13 proposes.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has teased out of the Minister an agreement to review the matter, but even with that improvement, the Bill offers a conundrum and no satisfactory answer. In the light of my practical and academic experience of local government, I can say that the role of the county council is not relevant to the proposal. If there is a role for the county council, in any shape or form, it is a national role. In areas such as Berkshire or the unlamented Avon, there are unitary authorities. I do not dissent from the Government if they are to take the regional route, but it should be perfectly possible for unitary authorities, or whatever the law may call may them—they are smallish by county council standards—to work with regional planners to develop a comprehensive and coherent regional plan. If that is possible in Berkshire, why is it not possible in Surrey? Providing a role for Surrey county council is, to put it mildly, unnecessary; but if that is what is to be done, the same role should be imposed on Berkshire county council. For those reasons, I believe that the provision is muddled; we ought to have either one thing or the other.

There is one good point in involving county councils: I can see a temporary role for the county council in making some sort of democratic contribution in regions that will have not elected assemblies but undemocratically appointed quangos. That could be done until the blessed day when we get rid of the Government and can abolish the regions and relieve the county councils of the role that the Bill would impose on them.

The Government are struggling to make councils into some sort of technical consultees. They are trying to find something for the county to do that is technical rather than mainstream. However, they will soon find that having three tiers of local government leads to chaos and they will have to do something about it. My hunch is that the county councils will go. Let us not treat councils as technical consultees: do one thing or the other.

The Government are entirely wrong here. I am perfectly willing to accept that a unitary authority covers too small an area to be a strategic regional planning authority. However, that is not an argument for the Bill. The regions are artificial. Rather than use the county councils as a mechanism between the small unitary authorities and the regions that the Government are trying to impose, the Government, if they wanted to act sensibly, could streamline a system in which local government could do everything

as a unitary body. There is no reason why local authorities should not co-operate; unitary authorities could be asked to develop a strategic plan jointly rather than have the artificial construct of the county council planning for several authorities or regional authorities planning for everybody.

The Government will discover when they come to enforce these provisions that regionalism and a sense of regional identity have nothing to do with service delivery. Nevertheless, the Government continue to insist through Bills such as this that service delivery is linked to a sense of regional identity. The Government are about to go backwards by imposing a second tier of local government, namely the region, on those areas lucky enough to have unitary local government at present. The Government are treating the region as a layer of local government. They will return to two tiers of local government in some places, and the Bill will enhance it; in other places, they will have three, although they have already admitted that they cannot possibly have three.

The role of the county council envisaged here is doomed to failure. The Government's whole philosophy is wrong, and the clause highlights their dilemma. They instinctively recognise that what they propose will not work, and they are struggling with a tier of local government. They are not prepared to do one thing or the other. I hope that one of these days, sooner rather than later, the Government will see the folly of their ways.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I had a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Spelthorne until he reached the end of his speech. The Government are struggling to resolve how to give power to the unelected regional chambers. In some places—for example, in Shropshire where I come from—that will create a two-tier system. How will the Government deal with that? I agree entirely that clause 13 exists to deal with a conundrum that the Government should ideally not have to deal with. Their long-term strategy is for elected government in all regions. I suspect that by the time they get to that they will have changed the boundaries and the number of regions. However, that is some years off yet. By that stage, there will also be unitary authorities. The county council—the district council in the case of Shropshire—will have gone, becoming a unitary authority. There will then be the planning system that is hoped for, though there will be an interim period that could last at least a decade.

The clause is the Government's admission that there will be a messy period and that they need to get round it. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Spelthorne on regions. I think that regional government can be a step forward if powers are devolved down from this place, rather than up from local government.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

So that the hon. Gentleman does not totally caricature my argument, I tell him that I argued the case that there is no foundation for service delivery, rather than governance.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I think that there is a foundation for service delivery. There is a danger of upsetting the

Welsh and the Scots by linking them to the views of English regions. Service delivery in Scotland has benefited from the Scottish Parliament's having control over it, and the same arguably holds for the Welsh Assembly and delivery in Wales. The hon. Gentleman's argument about service delivery is wrong and will eventually be shown to be so.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is again confusing the issues that I mentioned previously. He has now introduced the concept of federalism, which also has nothing to do with service delivery.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that strong regional government means that we have a federal system in England, though he can call it what he likes. I want strong regional government in England, and I think that the Government's sympathies point in that direction, though they have not yet had the confidence to devolve powers down to the regions, rather than pull them up from the county councils and local authorities

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is now referring to Scotland as a region or a nation?

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Scotland is a nation, and will probably always have stronger powers than any region of England. It has a tradition of making law. None of us would say that the regions of England should have the power to make their own criminal law. There are large variations. I do not say that identical regions are needed. There will be one anomaly: English regions will probably have tax-varying roles. The Welsh Assembly will not have similar powers, and will theoretically have fewer powers than the English regions. The Government will have to do something about that in the long run, and give the Welsh Assembly the powers that it deserves.

I shall return to the clause, as I am sure you would like me to do, Mr. Pike. Although the hon. Member for Spelthorne and I have had our little to-ing and fro-ing about regions, I think that he hit on the right issue. The clause is about dealing with a little problem of the Government's to do with where we are now, and where they want to get to. Between now and then, things will be rather messy. I would prefer for the problem to be dealt with by not transferring powers up to the regions until there are elected regional assemblies, which would avoid the need for the clause. The Government could have had a nice tight Bill, maintaining the current system until transferring powers up to the elected regional assemblies once they are. The clause and other provisions in the Bill are necessary because the Government have chosen not to wait until there are elected regional assemblies before transferring the powers. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will be frank about that.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Government have produced a helpful document entitled ''Development plan system: Overview of current and proposed new system: What the bill does''. I urge the Minister to keep producing such helpful documents. He has a team of civil servants behind him, and Opposition Members need all the help that they can get.

That document makes it clear that the survey function envisaged in clauses 12 and 13 already exists under sections 11 and 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Clause 12 sets out the survey powers of the local planning authority, and clause 13 sets out the same powers for county councils. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the powers and functions of county councils, but the hon. Member for Ludlow was right to say that there will be a mess during the transitional period. The Bill compounds that mess; it sets out, in clause 12(2), some of the matters that the local planning authority must keep under review, but the equivalent matters for county councils are not included.

In his rather fast speech—I must check Hansard to see what he said—the Minister set out the functions that the county council must consider. It would have been tidier to include that information in the Bill rather than in guidance. After all, if the Minister is prepared to accept an amendment to ensure consistency between the subsections (1) of the two clauses, why will he not ensure consistency between the respective subsections (2)? I am still concerned that the Bill does not make clear the functions of county councils. That will need to be done in guidance, and I hope that it can be done fairly quickly so that we can maintain the expertise available in county councils. There is a great deal to cover in the rest of this part of the Bill, so we should move on. I urge my colleagues to support the clause.

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

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ludlow thinks that the minerals and waste development functions of county councils are some ''little problem'' and not terribly important. He and the hon. Member for Spelthorne seem to think that the clause is just something that we have concocted to get over what has been described as a ''struggle'' with county councils, as if we said, ''Oh my God, what do we do with them while we are in the waiting room between the Bill and the establishment of English regional assemblies?'' In London, where there is substantial duality in the planning system, many boroughs—not all, although they all should have—have agreed that waste should be dealt with not at borough level, but at sub-regional level. Minerals are perhaps less of a problem in London. The notion that these functions are trifling, do not matter and will all be dealt with on a regional basis is nonsense.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

At no point did I say that the functions were mere trifles. Other hon. Members may have implied that, but I certainly did not. My point is that the clause has been included because of the transitional period. If we had gone through the transitional period, there would be no county councils, only a unitary structure throughout England. In the case of a unitary authority replacing the county council in Shropshire, it would continue to deal with waste and minerals, as well as taking up those things currently dealt with by the district council. I am commenting not on those powers, but on the purpose of the clause. It exists only because there will

be a transitional period before we have elected regional assemblies.

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

I do not think that that is entirely the case. Let us consider London, the one area where there is that split between unitary and regional bodies. Certainly in my borough, a waste strategy could not function adequately if it were not constructed across west London, and that would be more than appropriate under any subsequent model. This is not about second-guessing the form of any subsequent legislation that may come before the House. The purpose of the provision is to do with serious planning functions that need to be carried out. If we accept that those functions must be carried out and that the county councils are the appropriate body to do that, we need surveys of the areas, as outlined in clause 13.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The Minister bracketed me alongside the hon. Member for Ludlow. I should therefore like to make it clear that, on the basis that God, in his wisdom, put Spelthorne on top of gravel, I need no persuading that gravel raising is deeply emotive and important. However, that is not the point. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that it does not necessarily require Surrey county council to deal with gravel-raising issues in my constituency, because Berkshire, immediately next door, where there is no county council, seems to deal with such issues perfectly adequately through the system of unitary authorities.

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

That is a choice, not a function of any transitory stage between now and the advent of elected regional assemblies throughout the country. It was suggested that a group of local planning authorities should jointly produce the regional spatial strategy and that the regional dimension was not needed at all. That is absurd. As I said, we are talking about important functions, and it is more than appropriate that county councils, given their experience and expertise, should carry them out.

Clause 13 is simply a counterpart to clause 12 as regards the continuing responsibility of the shire counties for county matters. I said that we would take on board the notion of planning office development. Clause 13 is very important in relation to the rest of part 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.