Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in

clause 14, page 8, line 13, after 'authority', insert

', with where it deems appropriate the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority,'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

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

No. 123, in

clause 14, page 8, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.

No. 225, in

clause 17, page 10, line 12, after 'authority' insert

'with where it deems appropriate the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority,'.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I note that, in your provisional selection, amendment No. 225 appears both in the group under clause 14 and as the lead amendment in the group under clause 17.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

You may not be reading the revised list, Mr. Green. Your list should have the word ''revised'' at the top. The provisional list was corrected yesterday.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Pike.

We seek to ensure that where two-tier district and county councils remain, they should work together, where needed, to produce producing the local development scheme. We have already established that the new local development schemes go beyond land-use planning and are intended to be a sort of spatial development strategy. Local development schemes will encompass transport, education, housing, health and employment issues, and investment strategies can play into those schemes.

Although the two-tier structure still exists in places, the authority that delivers many functions is the county council, not the district council. It would be slightly perverse if the district council, in drawing up its local development scheme, did not consult county councils to ensure that it took their views into account.

The amendments would ensure that local and planning authorities at district level have regard to assistance offered by county councils in areas that affect them. That falls short of formal partnership, and I hope that the wording reflects the Government's preferred way to deal with the matter. They have often said that they do not want to formalise arrangements. We heard about the example of Brent and an adjoining London authority, which was obviously a two-tier area. I hope that the Government will like the style of the wording. It certainly suits the themes that the Minister has talked about.

The amendment has been worded to be future-proof. It should deal with any eventual set of circumstances concerning local authorities. As we heard from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, there has been a considerable history of change in local government. Every few decades or so, the Government, whoever they may be, decide to change the whole system.

The amendments would ensure that districts use county council assistance, where it makes sense, in drawing up local development schemes. The amendments are broadly along lines suggested by the Local Government Association. The hon. Member for Cotswold may mention that when he speaks to his amendment, which would achieve the same result as mine.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Clause 14 concerns the local development scheme. At the beginning of this sitting, I

was slightly premature in launching into a description of various local development schemes, documents and plan documents. Having described them, I do not need to repeat myself, except to say that I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm my understanding of the concentric circles in which the local development document encompasses local development documents, which further encompass local development plan documents. His helpful piece of paper ''Development plan system: Overview of current and proposed new system: What the Bill does'' confirms that.

That piece of paper also confirms what I said earlier. Local development frameworks, a term widely used in the Green Paper ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', do not appear in the Bill. The piece of paper explains that the term will be used in guidance as a collective term for all LDDs, SCIs, and so on. Another form of terminology is creeping in, which will further complicate the entire process because it will be used in general guidance. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke to his amendments. I prefer my own, but I would say that, wouldn't I? I dislike his amendments for using the word ''deem''. I am always suspicious when that word appears, because it gives the local authority, the Government or the Secretary of State an almost all-encompassing power of whose meaning they can give the sole interpretation. Should a case then come to judicial review, they need merely say, ''We deemed this, or the other''.

I am not being unkind to the hon. Member for Ludlow, but simply telling him the facts of life. I always like clarity and simplicity, and I believe that amendment No. 123 would provide it. The hon. Gentleman himself said straightforwardly that it would clarify the powers of local planning authorities and county councils—the same old chestnut. Typically, county councils deliver 80 per cent. of local government services, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in the important areas of transport, education, housing, health, employment and major investment strategies.

It is inconceivable that when important local documents are drawn up the county council should not in practice be consulted on them. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point because it is not in the Bill.

Asking local planning authorities at district level to have regard to assistance offered from the county level in the same area, which is short of a formal partnership, seems to be consistent with the Bill and the Government's thinking. I would have thought the Minister would have no problem in confirming what I am saying and in accepting our amendment. I look forward with great interest to his response. I hope that this time we can get not half a loaf but a whole loaf.

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

The hon. Gentleman should not take what happened on clause 13 as an unhappy precedent for the rest of our proceedings. Amendment No. 224 requires the local planning authority to make use of

''the assistance of any other local authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority''

in carrying out its duties to repair or maintain a local development scheme where it is deemed appropriate. The respective hon. Gentlemen have gone through amendments Nos. 123 and 225. The only point that emerged was that, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, amendment No. 225 is more specific to clause 17 and the statement of community involvement rather than the local development documents, but it was appropriate to place it in this group in the provisional selection.

I am confident that local planning authorities may wish to seek assistance from other local authorities whose areas cover part of theirs. I ask why on earth they would not do so in the context of the framework's development. I am also confident that local planning authorities will want to consult such authorities about their local development schemes before submitting a draft to the Secretary of State.

It is clear that they will need to do so where they are dependent on those other authorities for information and advice necessary for the preparation of the relevant local development documents; for example, in the two-tier areas, relevant survey data may be collected by the counties or there may be a need to ensure proper liaison with work on the local transport plan. We have already talked about the role county councils may play in keeping matters relevant to local planning under review.

Furthermore, there may be occasions where joint local development documents need to be prepared with a county council through joint committee arrangements—we will come to that matter. For all those reasons we intend to encourage such consultation.

The Bill makes it clear that preparing and maintaining the local development scheme is the local planning authority's responsibility. Clarity is important as it reflects the authority's responsibility for the scheme and the local development documents to be produced under it. Specifying that the local authority should obtain assistance from other authorities where deemed appropriate could blur that clarity and is hardly appropriate for legislation as opposed to guidance.

No value would be added in requiring a local planning authority to specify assistance in its local development scheme. The local development scheme is intended to be a project plan to be kept under review and updated as necessary. It would set out the local development documents that the local planning authority proposed to prepare, and their area and subject matter; it would also specify which of those the local planning authority proposed should be subject to statutory procedures, and which not. In the transitional period, it would show which sections of the old local plan or unitary development plan still comprised part of the development plan, and whether any of those documents were to be prepared jointly with another planning authority or authorities.

Finally, it would set out the planned timetable for preparing the documents.

Adherence to the overall scheme laid down by the local planning authority will form part of the best value assessment indicators against which the performance of the local planning authority will be measured. Local planning authorities will be required to produce an annual report on progress in preparing the local development documents against the targets set out in the scheme. The matters to be set out in the scheme are, rightly, clear and definite. It would not be appropriate for assistance from other authorities, which may of course be given informally ad hoc, to be listed in the local development scheme, and I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendments.

I am in a slight dilemma now, given the time; I could say much about amendment No. 225, which would make specific provision for assistance from other authorities. It relates to the statement of community involvement and although it is rightly included in this group I think that I shall keep my powder dry until we reach clause 17.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Before I call Mr. Clifton-Brown, may I make it clear that only one amendment has been moved—No. 221, the lead amendment of the group?

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Why does the Bill, which sets out huge powers for the regional planning body and the local planning authority, not specify the powers of the county council? The Minister has been very helpful, has told us how he envisages the powers working, and has explained that they will be in guidance. However, why is that so? Why can there not be some consistency?

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

If nothing else, the Bill is extremely consistent in its exposition of details of what is to be, as we said right at the start of the consultation process on the planning Green Paper, a definitive two-tier system. With a two-tier system it is perfectly appropriate to develop in some detail in statute the appropriate planning and other public policy functions of the two tiers. Nevertheless, there is recognition of a continued role for county councils. Apart from waste, minerals and other matters, such as transport, much of the county council's continued role in planning functions and assistance to other regional or local planning authorities is not in the Bill, because the system is a two-tier one. More appropriately it is expanded on in regulation. That is an entirely fair way to proceed.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

That is precisely our criticism of the Bill, which clearly is introducing not a two-tier system but one that will, until the elected regional assemblies come into being, have three tiers. The region, the county and the local authorities will be involved, and the Minister cannot get away with saying that that is a two-tier system. The huge amount of guidance and what he has said this afternoon make it clear that the counties will still have an important strategic role.

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

County councils will, as I have said, continue to have an important role with respect to clause 13 deliberations. Two bodies are principally

responsible for development of the statutory policy-planning framework: the regions are responsible for the spatial strategy dimension, and the local planning authorities are responsible for the local dimension. That, to all intents and purposes, is a two-tier system, but the county council's role will continue at one level. That is not, as it was characterised by the hon. Member for Ludlow—and the hon. Member for Cotswold clearly agrees with him—being done belatedly, on the back of an envelope, with a cry of, ''Oh my God, we forgot the county councils. We'd better give them something to do.'' Serious functions will continue to be carried out by county councils, which are significant bodies with a skills base in the planning profession that should aid both the regional planning bodies and the local planning authorities. However, the system is overwhelmingly two tiered, which is why much statute deals with the top and bottom levels—the regional and local. The role of counties, which have real functions, is not an encumbrance or historical hangover but it is better to expand on their functions in regulation, circulars and guidance than to do so in the Bill. The Bill deals with the overall strategic, legal and policy framework for the future of planning in this country. In that context, we have an overwhelmingly two-tier system.

With that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

We have had a bit of explanation from the Minister about how he sees the system working, but we may have to return to the subject as he is slightly naïve if he thinks that the district and county councils will always work seamlessly together. Only last year, Shropshire county council and South Shropshire district council had one hell of a fight over their alternative proposals in Craven Arms in my constituency. The Secretary of State ended up having to sort out the mess, and the two planning departments could barely speak to each other for about two months.

The assumption that co-operation will always happen naturally is slightly dangerous, and the Minister may find that he has to return to the matter in regulations or in some other way to ensure that district councils use the skills of the county councils and seek their assistance in developing schemes that involve services delivered by the county council. An element of the Bill has not been thought through, which is how the counties will fit into the planning process for the next decade or so before they disappear, and once again, clause 14 reveals the weakness in the Government's thinking. However, the Minister seems confident that those problems will not arise.

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

I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about Craven Arms. That was a specific development application and a site-specific case. I would not share his pessimism or describe my view as naïve when it comes to LPAs discussing the overall planning framework with neighbouring LPAs, counties or regional bodies. There may be the odd row on specific site designations, but most bodies would work in the same strategic direction.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I accept what the Minister is saying, but I still foresee circumstances in which, for example, a county council wants waste activities on a certain site while a district council wants mixed-use development. I will not go into details about the specific case in my constituency, but I can see such a dispute happening again, which could cause problems in the relationship between two planning departments for some time.

I am conscious of time, and given the Minister's confidence that all will be sweetness and light and that there will be no problems between district and county councils, I am prepared to leave it to him at the moment. I suspect that we may have to return to the subject, but for the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I want to make a constructive point that could help all Committee members. I accept the reasons for grouping amendments together, but where one amendment does not relate to the clause under discussion, it would be extremely helpful if there could be some indication on the Chairman's selection list of the clause to which it does relate. For example, in the group that we have just discussed, amendments Nos. 224 and 123 would be listed under clause 14, then amendment No. 225 might appear with clause 17, to which it relates, in brackets.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he has been a Member of this House for a long time, as have I, and the amendment paper has appeared in its current format for many years. Having said that, I can make the Chairman's Panel aware of his point. Unless a consequential amendment is withdrawn, and if I am given notice, the other amendment could be moved formally and put to the vote at the appropriate time. In some cases, and depending on how closely it is linked to the lead amendment, that cannot be done because it would be pointless. However, amendments that stand alone but are linked by subject without being dependent on another amendment can be moved in that way.

I can make the Chairman's Panel aware of the hon. Gentleman's wish and obtain the views of other members of the Chairman's Panel.

Mr Dan Norris (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Wansdyke, Labour)

I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I shall now put the Question

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. This is a genuine point of order. Because of the way in which the Bill has been structured and the Government's timetable for examining the amendments, if we adjourn now we shall have no opportunity to extend the time for dealing with a further 23 and a bit clauses. We shall reconvene on Thursday, when we must adjourn at 11.25 am and return at 2.30 pm, but the guillotine on part 2 will fall at 5 pm and not at the end of that day's sitting. I shall vote against adjourning now, because—

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

Vote against it then.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has made his point. I should not normally take a point of order when I have begun to put the Question. The position is clear. The programme motion was revised at the end of our sitting last Thursday and was moved and agreed first thing this morning. I stated clearly that Chairmen are always prepared to consider further changes if it is helpful in making progress and there is agreement between the Whips. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. My hon. Friend is right on the technical aspect of the timetable, but I understand that whether the Committee adjourns at 5.17 pm is a matter for your discretion. The timetable on part 1 of the Bill was severe and we were unable to consider clauses 5 to 11. If we are to have another severe timetable on part 2, everyone will wonder what this Committee is all about. The Government have not given us enough time and I am asking whether you should exercise your discretion, Mr. Pike, on whether the Committee should adjourn now.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I have no discretion on whether I put the Question. When the Question has been moved, I must put it. I could allow a debate under Standing Order No. 37, but, by precedent, it must be put formally and there can be a division. I understand exactly what hon. Members are saying and explained the position in theory at our sitting last Thursday. My only power is that when the Committee decides to

continue and the motion has not been moved, I am able to decide at what time we would take a tea break or meal break.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. This is the final point of order that I shall raise. Would the Government be prepared to withdraw the Question so that clause 14, at least, can be dispensed with?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

The Whip has moved the Question, so I must put it. The Minister has heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman and the Government could vote against the Question. I shall now put the Question.

Question put, That further consideration be now adjourned:

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.