Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 363, in

clause 37, page 20, line 14, at beginning insert 'or'.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

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

No. 362, in

clause 37, page 20, line 14, leave out 'or published'.

No. 238, in

clause 37, page 20, line 14, at end insert—

'(5A) if to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with a policy in the regional spatial strategy for the region the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy in the regional spatial strategy'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Good morning Mr. Amess. It is nice to see you back in the Chair, as it is to see the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) back in his place. We extend the usual courtesies to him and hope that his wife is doing well .

Hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Since so many people are curious to know, I am told that the hon. Member for Ludlow is father to a girl, and I think that congratulations are in order.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept the good wishes of the whole of the Committee.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I thank the Committee for its kind thoughts. Yes, we have had a baby girl, and, although she is six weeks premature, she is very healthy, as is my wife. I am delighted, and I thank the Committee for its forbearance.

Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

That is wonderful news, and quite in order.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The whole Committee rejoices in the news, and I hope that mother and daughter will continue to do well.

We come to part 3. Under the absurdly tight time schedule within which we must debate the Bill, we have debated only four of the 11 clauses in part 1, and only as far as clause 17 of the 36 clauses in part 2. The most important provisions, on which the rest of the Bill stands, are in parts 1 and 2, yet we have debated less than half of those parts.

From the number of organisations whose representatives have come to my office, it is becoming quite clear that planning practitioners are increasingly realising that the Bill will bring chaos, delay and uncertainty into the system. Several lawyers left my office last night rubbing their hands with glee, saying that the High Court would be littered with applications for judicial review.

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is beginning his speech. However, I remind him of the amendments that he and his hon. Friends have tabled, and ask him, kindly, to draw his remarks very closely to those amendments.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Amendment No. 363 is put into context by the fact that the Bill is very bad and will bring the system into chaos. The clause enshrines some of the Bill's complexity, which we have already discussed. In particular, I refer to clause 2, which is about the local plan process, and which I think is the worst aspect of the Bill. Why on earth must we have the total complexity of local development schemes, local development plans, local development plan documents and local development frameworks enshrined in guidance, when we could have what is in the Welsh part? There is a need for amendments Nos. 363 and 362, and for amendment No. 238, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow.

In contrast to what I have said, the explanatory notes say:

''Clause 37 defines the development plan by reference to the simplified hierarchy of plans and documents created by this Bill. It also applies the definition to existing relevant legislation.''

If the matter is simple, I am a Dutchman, and since I certainly am not a Dutchman, the matter is not simple by any means. I am not alone in saying that: many practitioners think it simple too.

Amendment No. 363 would clarify subsection (5), which states that a

''conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted, approved or published''.

That is too restricted, and the clause should refer to ''the last document to be adopted or approved or published''. Otherwise, it implies that only those plans adopted by the local planning authority and approved by the Secretary of State will be considered, and that is far too high a hurdle. The wording will tend to enshrine extreme complexity in the area of conflict resolution, and there will undoubtedly be conflict.

The Law Society tells us that the purpose of amendment No. 238 is to provide a means of resolving conflicts between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. It says that subsection

(5) provides a procedure for dealing with conflicts between policies in the development plan, but that the clause must also make provision for conflicts between the plan and the regional spatial strategy.

Although I understand the Law Society's reasons for probing the subject, I would almost say that the local development scheme should prevail in any conflict with the RSS. After all, it is likely to be far more democratic and acceptable to local people than a spatial strategy for a remote, unknown region. That is particularly true where the strategy is drawn up by a regional chamber composed entirely of indirectly elected members. That would have some democratic legitimacy if and when we got as far as having elected regional assemblies, but I do not believe that most regions will get that far, so strategies will not have that legitimacy. Yet, by and large, regional spatial strategies will take precedence.

Conflict resolution is important, and I hope that we shall not need it. If nothing is done about the Bill's complexity, however, I am certain that we shall, so, for goodness' sake, let us get the provisions right.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

One danger of speaking at the tail end of a debate is that the person who moves the amendments may have said everything that one planned to say.

The Law Society suggested amendment No. 238, which I tabled to probe what the Minister intends to do if there is a conflict between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who suggested that it would not be clever to give the regional planning body powers over local development plans, particularly if it was not an elected regional assembly.

If the Bill does not propose a method for dealing with conflicts, they will end up awaiting resolution on the Secretary of State's desk. Once again, decisions will be made in Westminster when they could have been more appropriately made regionally or, particularly, locally. The amendment is intended to probe the Minister's thinking and to see whether there is a plan for dealing—through regulations or otherwise—with conflicts between local development plans and regional spatial strategies.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

My understanding was that amendment No. 363 was consequential on amendment No. 362. In other words, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold sought, for very sound reasons, to delete ''published'', and the wording in subsection (5) would therefore read ''adopted or approved''. Perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm that.

It may be surprising that I partly disagree with amendment No. 238, of which, as the hon. Member for Ludlow acknowledged, the Law Society is the author. It is logical that if there is conflict between a local development plan and a regional spatial strategy, the latter should take precedence because it is produced by a greater organisation, which is responsible for town and country planning matters

and development plans in its region. I strongly believe that directly elected local planning authorities should take precedence over unelected regional bodies unless and until regional assemblies are directly elected. That is crucial. I apologise for repeating it, but I want to take every opportunity to implore the Government to think again and not to activate the parts of the Bill that give powers to regional bodies unless and until the regional bodies are directly elected.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

In my 15 years in the House, I have learned never to tangle with the Clerk's department, but it crosses my mind that it would have been easier for me to explain the two amendments if amendment No. 362 had come before amendment No. 363. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, inserting ''or'' follows from the later leaving out of ''or published'', so amendment No. 363 would simply make an amended subsection readable—

Mr David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. It is correct for amendment No. 363 to come before amendment No. 362 because that is the order in which the amendments relate to the Bill.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I said that over my 15 years in the House I had learned not to tangle with the Clerk's department, and I have just proved why.

For all practical purposes, the concerns that caused me to table the two amendments are dealt with by amendment No. 362, which would omit the words ''or published''. I readily accept the need to decide what to do when there is a conflict, and I shall discuss the point more generally when I speak to amendment No. 238. I know that I have a suspicious mind—I thought that Opposition politicians were supposed to have suspicious minds so that they could question the Government—but I have the idea that if something is about to happen that a planning authority does not like, it will simply publish a document, although its contents will not subsequently be approved by the Secretary of State or its provisions adopted. If the clause is accepted, planning authorities will need only to whack out a document and say, ''It was published much later than anything else, and until we deal with it or scrap it, it takes precedence.'' I am sure that the Minister will tell me why I need not worry, but I see that loophole. The publication of an unadopted, unapproved document will take precedence over approved and adopted plans that may have been in place for some time.

I leave it to the Clerk to decide whether amendment No. 363 is taken before amendment No. 362 or the other way around, because she is the font of all wisdom on such matters, but the gist of my point is contained in amendment No. 362, which would insert ''or'' where it is needed.

On amendment No. 238, I have also learned over the years not to tangle with the Law Society, but I shall do so on this occasion because I do not follow its solution to an obvious problem. It is right for us to require some way of resolving such difficulties. It was probably my headmaster who taught me to think like this, and that was probably his intention. He had been a headmaster for 30 years, and he would never allow more than 12 school rules at a time. Although the rules

were revised over the years, rule 12 always stayed the same, and it stated that all the other rules were no substitute for common sense. The Law Society is breaking my old headmaster's 12th rule.

Some spatial strategies will be produced by bigger and more professional organisations, perhaps with more wisdom; however, as the years go by—I cannot think of an example, but I do not believe that this will be the exception to the general rule—there will be occasions on which something happens that results in conflict because no one quite got round to revising the regional spatial strategy.

The world moves on, however, and local situations happen. For instance, there could have been a major redundancy or something could have happened in the area that required a new approach; and it is done through the local plan. However, there could be a clash. If we were to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow—or the Law Society's amendment—we would accept that common sense could not be brought to bear to resolve that conflict.

I accept entirely that there must be a mechanism for resolving such conflicts. Indeed, there probably is a loophole in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will address it and, if necessary, come forward on Report with something that says what should happen in such circumstances. However, I do not support a hard-and-fast rule that must always find in someone's favour, because that would prevent the possibility of change—and of common sense being applied.

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

It is a pleasure, Mr. Amess, to be under your tutelage and chairmanship once again. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow; I hope that fatherhood will result in the toning down of his shirts. Today's is certainly far better than those that he wore before parenthood.

The difficulty with the amendments is that hon. Members have read the Bill both too literally and, in some senses, not literally enough. The language in the clause is particular and important. Incidentally, I do not say it often, but I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said about the Law Society amendment—but I shall come to that shortly.

The three words used in subsection (5) are specific and important. Local development documents are the only ones that the word ''approved'' could refer to, as they are the only documents in the hierarchy of planning documents that need to be formally adopted by local resolution. The word ''adopted'' refers to local developments; ''approved'' refers to planning documents such as those subsequently endorsed by the Secretary of State after intervention. That is clear, and there is no dispute.

In the context of the hierarchy of plans, ''approved'' can mean only something approved by the Secretary of State subsequent to an intervention. In context, ''published'' means—again, specifically—the RSS or the special development strategy. The RSS and the SDS for London are not adopted or approved documents; they are published. That is the only

interpretation of ''published'' documents, and the amendments are therefore superfluous.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says, but if a local planning authority holds a committee meeting at which a revision is presented and the information produced on a piece of paper, is it not publishing a document?

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

With the greatest respect, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen. Local development documents, in whatever shape or form they come, published or otherwise, are not part of any meaning or intent in the clause. Local authorities can publish what they like; unless a local development document or a revision thereto is adopted through the usual process by the local planning authority, it is irrelevant to the clause.

In subsection (5), ''published'' refers only to the RSS and the SDS. Those strategies will have reached the end of the formal process, subsequent to examination and publication and whatever other process the SDS is going through—published, not adopted, approved, deposited, but only published. In the clause, ''published'' means those regional documents, and nothing else. Whatever the LPA publishes does not matter.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The Minister must have a different copy of the Bill from mine, because nowhere in subsection (5) can I find any reference to RSS or SDS. How can he assert that it relates only to the clause when it does not say so?

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

Littered throughout the Bill—certainly in parts 1 and 2—are the processes by which RSSs and SDSs are determined. They are determined ultimately by publication. In the narrow legal confines of the clause, in the context of conflict and resolution of conflict between planning documents, the term ''published'' can refer only to RSSs and SDSs; it does not have to say that because the notion is expressed throughout the Bill. The same goes for the words ''approved'' and ''adopted'' in this context. Given that, in whatever order we consider them, to delete ''or published'' is daft. Because the clause is all about the resolution of conflict between the various levels of plan, taking out the words ''or published'' would take out the RSSs and SDSs, and does not make sense. Equally, it is irrelevant to add ''or'' between ''approved'' and ''adopted'', because the two terms mean different things—LDDs are approved subsequent to intervention by the Secretary of State and adopted by resolution by the local planning authority; we do not want references to one ''or'' the other. The second ''or'' would be irrelevant, and would make the clause even more meaningless than would dropping the words ''or published''.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne is entirely right about amendment No. 238. The whole purpose of re-energising the plan-led system is to ensure that there is flexibility and responsiveness in the system. As he said, in the Law Society amendment the hon. Member for Ludlow is saying that RSSs reign in perpetuity über alles, no matter whether they were published last year or five years ago. That cannot be right. There has

to be a degree of temporal hierarchy. It is more than appropriate that conflict between such documents should be resolved by reference to the most recent document, and it is crucial to the responsiveness and flexibility that we want to guarantee in the system. As the system develops, given that all the local development documents will have to be in general conformity with the RSS, the conflict should be minimal. The word ''general'' is important to the argument about whether LDPs or RSSs should prevail. There should be general conformity, rather than the LDP being a local contextualisation of whatever is in the RSS.

I hope that we can move on to matters of more substance than this linguistic misinterpretation of the clumsy English language. There are only three definitive interpretations of the terms ''adopted'', ''approved'' and ''published''. None of the amendments would add anything to the resolution of conflict. Indeed, at least two of them would resolve the conflict by dropping one of the three crucial elements of the plan hierarchy. That is not helpful. In that context, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. Unless I have missed something, I do not agree with him. I accept that the word ''approved'' is clearly defined. We have had debates about the powers of the Secretary of State to approve, to direct or to require. Similarly, I am conscious of the fact that we have had occasion to agree to clauses in which it says that adoption will be by resolution of the planning authority. I accept that. However, unless I have missed something—or unless, like the Scilly Isles clause, it is tucked away later in the Bill—I do not think that we have discussed the meaning of ''published''.

It may be that certain things have been published, which is why I ask what is meant by ''published'' on this occasion. Unless the Minister can point to a specific definition of the word ''published'' somewhere in the Bill, the dictionary meaning of ''published'' is relevant. The Minister would like to dismiss my point as pedantic and say that the English is clumsy, but the example that I used is relevant. To have a document put in front of you and given to the press at a council meeting is, by my understanding of the dictionary definition, the publication of a document. If the meaning of the word ''published'' is meant to be restricted to these two documents only, the Bill surely needs to say so. That is all I am doing.

If a published document has not been adopted or approved it should not be relevant. However, if the Minister is saying that ''published'' does not refer to those documents, then there is a weakness in the Bill. I am not sure why I am trying to help him, but I am. In case this matter ever goes to court, the Minister, rather than asserting that everyone knows what ''published'' means in this context, must ensure that the Bill defines exactly what it means. It should be defined as being in respect of RSSs and SDSs; then it would mean what the Minister claims it means. As it stands, I can already see the taxi meter of the lawyers' fees clocking

up, as people who are paid a great deal more than I am argue exactly the same point that I am arguing now.

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

Clause 8(6) requires the Secretary of State to publish the regional spatial strategy, and as far as I can see, that is the only reference to published documents in this narrowly defined context. Section 337 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, on whose Standing Committee I served with great pleasure, with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, refers specifically to the mayor's powers to publish the spatial development strategy. They are the only references, I am assured, to documents that have been published by the Secretary of State concerning the RSS.

The point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne about local documents being produced at a meeting is entirely spurious and erroneous and has nothing to do with subsection (5) at all. Mere repetition of a point does not make it correct; it remains a fatuous point.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

We have had an interesting debate. It is clear that the clause is not entirely clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has argued cogently for his amendments. We have a great deal to get through today. No doubt what we say will be on the record, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 239, in

clause 37, page 20, line 15, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment was suggested to me by the Law Society and, not having a legal background myself, I place myself in its hands, because of its legal expertise. The Law Society has foreseen a problem, although I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it is not a problem. The society believes that there is confusion over the status of the development plan for the purposes of determining planning applications.

Subsection (6), which amendment No. 239 would remove, repeats, with a slight reordering of the words, section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Law Society believes that there is a problem in that subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of clause 37 define the development plan as being different from what is defined in section 54A of the 1990 Act. There could be confusion about which provision applies, as section 54A is not being repealed. The Government should either adhere to section 54A or specify in the Bill the items that will constitute development plan documents to which planning authorities should have regard when determining applications.

For example, will a design brief constitute a development plan document? If so, a developer who does not adopt the recommended design features should have his application rejected on that ground alone. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some clarification. As I have said, better legal brains than mine have foreseen the problem, although perhaps other aspects of the Bill rule it out. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on the matter.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Ludlow has done the Committee a service by tabling the

amendment that the Law Society suggested. There is a complicated legal conundrum here, so I shall take things slowly. The conundrum relates to the 1990 Act, which is of considerable size. Mr. Amess, I am sure that you and the Committee will be glad to learn that I shall not read out the entire Act. I assure you that if I did, we should exceed—many times over—the timetable laid down under the programme resolution.

However, I shall concentrate on section 54A in the 1990 Act. The problem relates to subsection (6) of clause 37. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ludlow seeks to delete that subsection, which states:

''If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts''—

those are the important words—

''the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.''

Which is the definition of the plan on which we shall concentrate? Is it the definition in clause 37 or that in section 54A of the 1990 Act?

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

To save the Committee time, if the hon. Gentleman refers to the list of repeals in schedule 6 and looks under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it says clearly that part 2 is to be deleted. Section 54A is in part 2, so the dilemma does not prevail. The Law Society has got it wrong.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I had misread the Bill, although I was going to suggest specifically that section 54A be deleted. If, as the Minister says, the whole of part 2 is to be deleted, the argument falls. I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. I apologise to the Committee; I should have spotted that when I read the Bill at a very late hour last night. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has pointed out why the amendment is unnecessary, so I do not intend to take up any more of the Committee's time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The clause is relatively short. As I said at the opening of this morning's debate, it enshrines in guidance the highly complex mechanism of the local development scheme, local development plans, local development plan documents and the local development framework. Therefore I am unhappy in principle with both the clause and the local mechanism.

The position in London is even worse because the Mayor's spatial strategy, not the regional spatial strategy, is to be considered. The former is even less democratic than the latter. Clause 37(2)(a) specifies who should take on the function of the regional planning body—the Mayor. Clause 14(3)(c) makes it clear that the boroughs, in drawing up the local development strategy, must send a copy to the Mayor, and under clause 18(2)(c) the borough must have regard to the Mayor's spatial plan. This is all relevant,

Mr. Amess, because what I am talking about is enshrined in the clause.

If, for example, Westminster wanted to include a strategy for tall buildings in Paddington, but that conflicted with the Mayor's spatial plan for the whole of London, eventually, under the clause, the matter would be resolved in the Mayor's favour, and the democratic will of Westminster city council would not prevail. The matter needs to be handled with a degree of common sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne says. I hope that we shall find, as a generality, that the workings of both the Mayor's spatial plan and the regional spatial plan will be in harmony with those of the local authority. However, I have a suspicion that owing to the complexity of the local plan mechanism, that will not happen.

Clause 37(8) is interesting in that it deals with the transition. In particular, paragraph 1(4) of schedule 5 refers to section 27 of the principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, under which a unitary development plan, together with any alteration, is to become the development plan for the area in question. Whereas the Conservative Government enshrined a bottom-up approach in legislation, by which the plan-making process would be built from the bottom, with the local plan first, then the structure plan and then any intervention by the Secretary of State, the new system will be centralised. In that system, the Secretary of State will make up his mind—and I trust I am correct in quoting the Minister as saying that the regional spatial plan is a creature of the Secretary of State. The Minister has already given the Committee a clue about what will happen.

The Secretary of State will decide a national planning policy for this country. He will then dictate that down to the level of regional spatial strategy, and from there it will be dictated down to local level. In my view, that is the wrong way to conduct planning. I do not know how often I must say that if local people do not feel that they have a say in their planning system, they will not have ownership of it. They will feel resentment. That is the wrong way to go about things in a democratic country.

I consider this a bad Bill. An increasing number of practitioners who come to see me also think so. The planning system in this country has evolved. It has been built on hundreds of thousands of court cases. Why on earth did Lord Falconer come up with the Green Paper? We are tearing it all up and starting again. I think that we shall rue the day when we tore the whole system up. Why not instead build on the existing system?

The clause is a bad one. The local plan system is far too complex and we shall live to rue the day we passed such a measure. However, it would make no sense to vote for the clause to be left out of the Bill; that would be a wrecking amendment. We shall not, therefore, vote against the clause, but we debate it with a heavy heart, because it is wrong.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

An issue that follows from what my hon. Friend said needs to be considered before we agree to the clause. My hon. Friend says that the

system should be built from the bottom up. I go along with the argument that the development plan should come first—that is the local aspect of the matter, which the people own. The clause makes it into a secondary thing that must fit into the artificial region's spatial strategy. In the case of Greater London, I have not got my mind round the question very far, but I understand the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned involving tall buildings.

Another issue, however, concerns me greatly. There is no mechanism in the clause. The clause is drafted on the assumption that each region's spatial strategy would exist in isolation from all the others. I can give an example of where that would lead, with reference to development plans. My constituency is administratively part of Surrey, but like other constituencies in that part of what many people call west London—although my constituents object to that—it is hugely dominated by Heathrow. Heathrow falls within Greater London, so the Mayor's spatial strategy would be all-important.

Not only is the Mayor about to introduce congestion charging in the centre of London, his next step is to enforce it on Heathrow. One can understand the arguments from a London point of view, or from a passenger point of view, but the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency who have anything to do with Heathrow—not only passengers but people who work there—are not in favour of it.

As a result of artificial boundaries, when the development plan for my constituency, which must take account of all the relevant issues, such as employment, has reached a particular conclusion, and public transport matters have been considered in a particular way, along will come the Mayor, poking his nose into my constituents' affairs and, under his spatial strategy and development plan, imposing a strategy that takes no account of the fact that a huge number of people to the south, west and, to a certain extent, north-east of Heathrow have nothing to do with Greater London. The clause provides no mechanism for sorting out that problem.

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

That is in London.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

If the Minister wants to put me out of my misery, I shall willingly give way to him.

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

I merely sought to correct the hon. Gentleman's geography. Anything to the north-east of Heathrow would be solidly inside Greater London.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

That is absolutely right. I deserve to be corrected. I meant to say north-west. Whether we are talking about north-east or north-west, the point is made. It concerns me, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's opinion about how to resolve the problem. The provisions state what should happen in London, and in the artificial regions of England and in Wales, but they do not say what will happen if there is conflict.

My old headmaster would have been delighted to see, in subsection (6), the phrase,

''unless material considerations indicate otherwise.''

That could easily have been written as, ''unless common sense dictates otherwise'', so it seems that the Minister and my headmaster would agree, at least on subsection (6), even if the rest of the Bill is useless.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

Subsection (2) refers to Greater London. The position in Greater London—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—is that the Mayor is responsible for presenting the spatial strategy and the local planning authorities are the London boroughs. As I understand it, the Mayor has absolutely no powers at all. He can propose the strategy, which may be a very good one, but the boroughs do not have to follow it. Whether the boroughs agree with the spatial strategy for their areas or not, the whole matter is judged by the Secretary of State.

As I argued earlier, I could understand it if the Mayor acted as Secretary of State for Greater London and considered all appeals relating to the area, apart for one or two cases regarding more regional decisions, such as terminal 5, which should be decided by the Secretary of State. I cannot understand why one principle should apply to Greater London and a totally different principle should apply to the other regions. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I would be grateful if he would press the Minister to explain whether the mayor's spatial plan can dictate the contents of the plans formulated by the boroughs. Subsection (5) states:

''If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the development plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted''.

As the mayor's spatial plan has already been adopted, I assume that, in drawing up local development schemes and plans, the boroughs will have to comply with the mayor's spatial plan. My hon. Friend raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will clarify it in winding up.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I honestly do not know the answer. I think that if there is any conflict in Greater London, one does not prevail over the other but the matter goes to the Secretary of State. However, I shall listen with interest to the Minister. There should be cohesion. Either London should change once the Bill is enacted—the powers of the RSS or the RPB should be transferred to the mayor or to the assembly—or the regions should have the same system as Greater London.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The parallel to what we are saying is the opposite—the local plans in the regions are in place, but the regional spatial strategies are not. Under the subsection, one would expect the local plans to take precedence. That, too, needs to be clarified by the Minister.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I understand what my hon. Friend says and I do not need to add to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made a good point. Until recently, when the boundaries of Greater London were changed, Heathrow was partly in

Greater London and partly in the borough of Spelthorne. I think that the mayor has obligations to consult planning authorities around London on significant Greater London applications that have to be referred to him.

Finally, I would have voted for amendment No. 363, because subsection (6) is gobbledegook. It is not just that ''material considerations'' adds nothing to the clause; the subsection is meaningless. It reads:

''If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.''

I willingly concede that my knowledge of town and planning law and regulation has become rusty over the past 42 years, but I would welcome some explanation of what that means. More importantly, I should like to hear the Government's thinking on the powers and responsibilities of the mayor and of the Greater London Assembly in relation to RSSs and LDPs, and what is proposed for the other regions in England.

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

The clause seeks merely to define what the development plan is and to specify how to resolve conflicts between the various parts of the plan. The hon. Member for Cotswold had it half right when he said that subsection (5) is crucial because it suggests that the most recent document should prevail; it is a rolling process, and that is appropriate. We do not live in an ideal world, and RSSs and LDPs do not all drop from the sky on the same day at the same time. I shall not rehearse for the umpteenth time the arguments, interesting though they were, as to how dreadful, chaotic and complex the system is. It clearly is not.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

It is important at this point to clarify the matter in terms of both London and the regions. If there is a conflict in London between the mayor's spatial plan and a borough's local development plan, will the Minister tell us which will take precedence, given that the mayor's spatial plan has already been published and approved, whereas the boroughs' plans have not been approved? In the regions, the opposite applies: local plans have been approved and are in place for most authorities. However, there is no approved regional spatial strategy in place. Under the clause, the most recent published document, the local plan, should take precedence. One or other must be right. Will the Minister clarify which it is?

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

The two systems that the hon. Gentleman describes within London and the rest of the regions are principally in the same situation. I said earlier that the hon. Gentleman was half right. He got it all wrong, however, when he started talking about the London plan. The plan is not approved, published or otherwise. It is in the public domain in draft. Its first consultation period ended on 30 September. People had from then until 14 December, I believe, to submit their views as a prelude to the examination in public, which I think starts in mid-February and finishes in March. I think that the mayor then has until next September to review all considerations, submit the plan to the Secretary of State and have it published. The tail-end of that process will be in September or October.

The SDS will be in the public domain, published as under the clause, and might well prevail for a short period—I would guess, without knowing the exact details of the timing of the Bill's progress through the House of Commons—until boroughs turn unitary development plans into local development documents. I say for a short period, because there will be any number of boroughs that, under their UDP revision timetable, will be well ahead of the game, in terms of turning their UDPs into those LDDs. If those boroughs do that after publishing the SDS, they will prevail. That is to say that the crux of subsection (5) is the means to resolve conflict.

However, once the system is off and rolling, local development plans in London or elsewhere should be in general conformity to the RSS or the SDS. There should be less and less desire for, need for, or chance of, conflict. The provisions are not time limited, and, as ever, the latest adopted, approved or published document will prevail. That is necessarily so for the flexibility and responsiveness of the system to be ensured. Beyond that, the clause simply defines what the development plan is and how that situation is to be resolved.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, although I wish to probe him a little further to see whether I have understood what he said. I am sure that he is right on the timetable for adoption, and that the mayor's spatial plan is already in the public domain. Once that plan is adopted, it will become the last published document, because the borough's local development scheme will not yet be in place. If the mayor introduces a strategy for tall buildings and Westminster borough council wants to build different types of buildings in, for example, Paddington, the mayor's spatial plan will prevail in that conflict, as it will be the last published document. Will the Minister confirm whether I am right?

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

It depends. If it were Tuesday 6 September and Westminster had not turned its UDP into an LDD, but by some happenstance the mayor had finally published the SDS, the hon. Gentleman would be right. If it were 15 October 2003, the SDS had not yet been published and Westminster still had its fully adopted and approved UDP, he would be wrong. It is purely a matter of time. Responsiveness is what matters. I suspect that, given the schedule of UDP deposits and revision for each London borough—I have that roughly in my head—and how that will work when there is transfer to LDDs, the SDS will prevail for a short period. However, some boroughs will come on stream faster than others in terms of the transition from UDP to LDD, and the SDS will no longer prevail.

Prevail is almost the wrong word though, because the transition from the UDP to the local development documents will still have to be done in general conformity to the SDS. It is not a matter of there being such stark differences in the documents. That situation certainly did not prevail in a previous incarnation of the duality of models between the Greater London development plan and the old borough plan. One had to survive and develop in

general conformity to the other. The matter is essentially to do with timing. That is not avoiding the issue—I am not a futurologist.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

May I project the Minister forward? There is an issue of timing in the initial phase. However, suppose that the same conflict arises in three years. From what the Minister said, there will be no conflict because the borough's local development schemes will have to conform to the mayor's spatial plan. They will have no option but to conform. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that I have got that right.

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

No. The crucial word is ''general''. Without being trite about geography, Paddington is probably the worst example because of its high buildings, Paddington basin and so on. Westminster may deem it entirely appropriate, but it may be more relevant there than elsewhere. It is futile to roll forward two or three years. General conformity is what is required; and general is the key word.

Westminster, or any other borough, might make an absolute case for the level of building development in particular areas of the borough being be at such-and-such a storey limit, rather than what is now springing up as an adjunct to the City of London. If that is agreed, it might establish clear material considerations and reasons for that development lying outside of a curious plan laid down in the SDS that there should be 30, 40 or 50-storey skyscrapers throughout London, which is not what prevails in the London plan, or in any other plan.

If it can be established that there is significant material consideration, whether it be heritage, the environment or the other factors that come into the drafting of LDDs, as well as the SDS and RSS, that there should not be such a significant high level development in Westminster, and if the suggestion subsequently undergoes the routine process of adoption through the local development documents, that would prevail over the previously published SDS, but only if it is for sound material planning considerations. It is not about the SDS or the RSS being absolute blueprints, that each and every local planning authority has to copy and implement locally, even to crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for given way again; he is being extremely generous, but it is an important matter. We have had some clarification in relation to London. I hope that this is my last intervention.

I ask the Minister to turn his mind to the situation in the shire districts. What would happen there? How would conflicts be resolved? What would happen if the regional spatial plan handed down house-building target numbers to each local development scheme and plan? What flexibility would each local authority have to reduce, or even to increase, that target number?

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

The clear shift from land-use planning to a broader regional basis allows us to move away from the old predict-and-provide model. The same resolution device would prevail, and that is

to be found in subsection (5). The document of most significance in terms of the plan would be the last-published, most relevant and the most up-to-date document. That flexibility and responsibility is key; it underpins the whole Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.