Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following amendments:

No. 325, in

clause 38, page 20, line 33, at end insert—

'( ) under Part 4 in relation to development control.'.

No. 326, in

clause 38, page 20, line 33, at end insert—

'( ) under Part 7 in relation to compulsory purchase.'.

No. 370, in

clause 38, page 20, line 34, leave out from 'function' to end of line 35 and insert—

'(a) with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development; and

(b) in Wales, so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the scheme made under section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.'.

I was going to call the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but he is not in his place.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

It would be helpful if you could remind us what point we have reached in considering the Bill, Mr. Pike.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. We are on amendment No. 384, which was moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) this morning. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had just risen to his feet and was speaking to the amendment as my co-Chairman brought the proceedings to a close.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I would not want to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, but my amendment No. 370 is in this group. I am surprised that it was not in the previous group of amendments, because it relates to the same part of the Bill. The Minister dealt with amendments No. 359 and 327 in the previous group.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I apologise for being late, Mr. Pike. Before the break we were considering clause 38, which relates to sustainable development, and amendments Nos. 384 and 325. Would you please clarify exactly which group of amendments we are considering now, Mr. Pike?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Amendment No. 384 was moved by the hon. Member for Ludlow this morning, and with it we are considering amendments Nos. 325, 326 and 370. I was not here, but I am told that the hon. Member for Cotswold had just risen to his feet as the proceedings were brought to a close.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am grateful for that explanation, Mr. Pike. I was here, but I had forgotten. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ludlow moved that amendment, which is supported by amendments Nos. 325, 326 and 370.

In a spirit of consistency, as the Minister acceded to half a loaf with a previous amendment, we should be considering whether all sections of the Bill should comply with the principles of sustainability. In clause 38(1) they apply under part 1 in relation to regional spatial strategy, under part 2 in relation to the local development scheme, and under part 6 in relation to Wales. However, for reasons that I hope the Minister will tell us about, parts 4 and 7, to which amendments Nos. 325 and 326 relate, are not covered by the principles of sustainability. Can the Minister tell us why major infrastructure projects, for example, which are dealt with in clause 40, and special planning zones are not covered by the principles of sustainability? Why is the exercise by a local authority of its compulsory purchase powers not covered by those principles? We must probe the Minister about that.

Amendment No. 370, which I presume that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) moved—

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. I must advise the Committee that the amendment that has been moved is amendment No. 384. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to it, but he cannot move it now because it is not the lead amendment.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I am grateful for your help, Mr. Pike. I was merely saying that I was surprised that amendment No. 370 was grouped with the amendments now under discussion and not with the previous group, as it seems to have more in common with amendments Nos. 359 and 327. I had no intention of moving it.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Over the lunch hour, when I was doing homework on the amendments, I too was struck by the way in which the amendments were grouped. Amendment No. 370 is a good amendment and it is worth referring to it. My hon. Friend drafted it to strengthen the obligation for the relevant authorities, including those in Wales, to work towards achieving sustainable development. I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether it would improve the Bill. However, as we discussed the matter at length this morning, I hope that we can move on to the next clause.

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

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike, and hope that our deliberations this afternoon will be as speedy and efficient as they were this morning. My speaking notes say that amendment No. 384 is in error because simplified planning zones are in part 4, not part 3 so we cannot discuss it, so we shall move on.

I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that simplified planning zones are covered because of the way in which clause 44 works. The need for an SPZ in an area has to be identified in the regional spatial strategy, which is covered by duties under clause 38. Therefore, in identifying the need for an SPZ, consideration will be given to sustainable development. Where the need for an SPZ has been identified, its location is likely to be contained in a local development document—to which, again, the duty in clause 38 applies. There is not a vacuum within which any definition or subsequent identification of SPZs takes place; they are sandwiched between RSSs and LDDs, both of which are clearly covered by clause 38.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

As the Minister is not objecting to the principle of the SPZs being covered in the same way as the others that are outlined in the clause, would he not, in the interests of clarity, find the amendment of assistance?

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

Because I am a politician, I am always loth to view assistance from the Opposition with anything but suspicion. Clarity is unnecessary in this regard, because one needs to see the entire Bill in all its interlocking glory. Because of the way in which clause 44 works, all that springs from it in terms of decision-making powers in connection with either the RSS or the LDD is covered in clause 38.

One might as well say that, for the sake of clarity, everything in the Bill should be covered. That is entirely wrong, not least because part 4 is not meant to be an expansive review and revision of every aspect of the development control function of LPAs or RPBs. If we were to be indulgent towards the other amendments, those things would be covered by the sustainable elements of clause 38 but the remainder of the development control functions, not covered by the Bill, would not be.

Equally, when we come to the next amendment—I cannot remember its number—the same will be true of compulsory purchase. The Bill was never intended as, and does not profess to be, a root and branch revision of every aspect of the compulsory purchase system. One element alone of the compulsory purchase functions of a LPA would be covered by this, if it were all embracing, rather than every element.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I fail to follow what the Minister is saying. We had a long debate this morning on sustainability, and the Minister made a long speech in reply to that debate in which he told us that sustainability was a very good thing. Therefore, it appears to be inconsistent that major infrastructure projects, for example, are not covered by the principles of sustainability. I want the Minister to tell us why some parts of the Bill are covered those principles—which he considers to be such a good thing—and other parts of it are not. That appears to be totally inconsistent, and it flies in the face of what the Minister said about the amendment that he looked favourably on earlier—he said that the Bill should be consistent in all its parts.

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

Had I said what the hon. Gentleman has just characterised me as saying, he might have half a point. I did not say that the development control functions in part 4 were not covered by the sustainable development elements of clause 38; they are covered by them.

What I am saying is that there is a great big world out there called the development control world, and that it goes far beyond the elements that we have revised in part 4. In so far as those elements impact on decisions to do with the development plan under clause 37, they will be covered by clause 38. However, it cannot be right that other development control functions should be captured in a willy-nilly, airy-fairy fashion when they are not defined or delineated, and when many of them will to some extent form part of the emerging LDDs and RSSs.

SPZs will be covered because of the way in which clause 44 works. SPZs do not drop from the sky; they are part and parcel of the LDD and, first, the RSS, both of which are bruited in the sustainable development responsibilities under clause 38—that is a central part of the clause. It is inappropriate to add a little part and suddenly say, ''That is covered by sustainable development.'' Everything is covered by sustainable development and by clause 38, to the extent that it impacts on clause 37.

We must look at clauses 37 and 38 in context. Subsequent to that, as all decisions made by planning authorities are governed by the RSSs—or at least they have to be in general conformity with them—or the LDDs, both of which are rooted in that duty with regard to sustainable development, everything is by and large covered.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister is doing a moderate job of defending the indefensible. The major infrastructure projects are outwith the RSS and the LDD. Can he say where in the Bill it is stated that major infrastructure projects are covered by the principles of sustainable development?

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

With the best will in the world, I must say that the hon. Gentleman needs to listen more. I said that to the extent that all those development control decisions—including MIPs—have to be taken in relation to the development plan in clause 37, they are rooted in and covered by clause 38. It is as simple as that.

Clauses 37 and 38 must be seen together. Clause 37 defines the hierarchy of the plans, and clause 38 defines the duty in terms of sustainable development. In as much as the MIPs and all the other elements under the development control part of the Bill relate to development control decisions, they are covered by clauses 37 and 38. That is also the case with regard to RSSs and LDDs—and all the other acronyms that one could muster, if one chose to do so.

Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment, particularly because of the SPZs.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Pike, but the Minister's comments have given me an opportunity

to raise a point that I did not and could not raise this morning. Your co-Chairman said that there would not be a clause stand part debate, so I will go back a step and remind you, and the Committee, that I said that there needed to be some discussion about what the Government had in mind.

The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold was being a bit ungracious—I cannot remember the exact word that he used—in not acknowledging the fact that he had received some documents from the Minister. At the time I believed that that was case for all of us, and I said that I did not want to be ungracious. After this morning's sitting I went to the message board and found the document that is in my hand, which is relevant to what the Minister said—the document to which the Minister referred this morning. I am sure that he will tell me that it was over on the Table this morning, but when I sat down in my place this morning I had no reason to know that it might be there. The document could not have been made available earlier because it is dated 21 January. It is helpful—I read it during lunchtime.

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

Let me make it clear that I was in my office until 10 o'clock last night making sure that the document had been produced and sufficient copies made. The copies were brought physically to the House by my staff this morning and were put on the Table in the Room. It is entirely the hon. Gentleman's fault if he does not look at the Table to find out what documents are available. I shall not have him rebuke my civil servants.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. We are having not a stand part debate but a debate on amendment No. 384. I ask hon. Members to ensure that their comments relate to the amendments.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. We have a problem of procedure. The Government's timetable is very tight. I appreciate that the Minister did his best to help the Committee by producing the document, which is extremely helpful as my hon. Friend said, but may I ask him with, the greatest deference, whether it would be possible to produce documents at least a day before our sittings? One cannot, especially if one is speaking, read a document on the day of the sitting in order to inform oneself of what one should say. It is important to receive documents in good time.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that the Minister heard what the hon. Gentleman said and that he endeavours to produce documents as speedily as possible for the benefit of the Committee and its Chairman.

I remind Mr. Wilshire that we cannot go back to this morning's debate and nor can we have a clause stand part debate because my co-Chairman has given a clear ruling on that. I shall allow Mr. Wilshire to speak provided that he speaks to the amendments that we are debating. I am sure that he is a sufficiently skilful Member to do that without incurring my wrath.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

That would be the last thing in the world that I would want, Mr. Pike. I gather that your wrath can be quite horrendous so I shall do my best to avoid it while merely expressing sorrow that the Minister chose to sour the point that I made. I was not being critical. The document is enormously helpful, but even if I had had it at the beginning of the morning, I could not have joined debate and read it at the same time.

The document helps our consideration. Item 21 says that the Government are committed to a planning system that is: ''Transparent''—one of the principles that the Minister wants—

''so that information about plans and policies is easily available in a form which is easily understood and can enable interested parties to respond''.

Everything that I said in my preamble is relevant to what the Minister is doing because any explanation for the public that reads ''ABC this'', ''DEF that'' and ''XYZ the other'' will be opaque. I hope that the Minister will follow the point in the document when he issues guidance and that he will not use so many acronyms that will confuse the public.

The document is important, but we should have debated it in our general discussion about sustainable development, and we should have the opportunity to discuss it on Report. I thought that the document was not available for me this morning; if it was, why did appear on the Message Board at 12 o'clock and why was it not given to me earlier? That worries me because even if I had walked across to the Table to pick it up, it would still have been too late. The Minister was right to say that he was being helpful when he gave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. I thanked him then and I thank him now, but I give notice that the matter must be discussed on Report.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has not answered the question posed by amendment No. 384. He says that it is covered for two reasons, one being that the regional spatial strategy has sustainable development written all the way through it. I agree with him about that; it covers the identification of the need for a zone. The Minister then said that that matter would be covered at a later stage because it would be part of a local development document. The proposed new section 1B in clause 44(2) states:

''The local planning authority must consider the question for which part or parts of their area a simplified planning zone scheme is desirable.''

The proposal does not refer to its being part of the local development document. My concern is that the Minister believes that it does, but nothing in the clause explicitly says so. Amendment No. 384 would create the overarching principle that it should be included. I am concerned that the Minister is making an assumption about what the Bill covers when its wording does not back up that assumption. I hope that he will intervene, but he shows no sign of doing so. I am tempted to force the matter to a vote. However, I believe, Mr. Pike, that if I force the amendment to a Division in Committee, I cannot do so on Report.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

I can give guidance on that. Matters can be discussed on Report when they have not been

forced to a Division in Committee, but that is by no means a firm rule. However, I cannot guarantee that because I have no idea what measures will be submitted for debate on Report. That is up to the Speaker.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you, Mr. Pike. Experienced people, with whom I should like to discuss what the Minister has said, identified the hole. I shall then decide whether to bring the he matter back on Report. The Minister has not answered my question. He believes that he has covered it, but there may well be a flaw. I am genuinely trying to ensure that this part of the Bill works. I want sustainable development covered for the planning zones. I shall consult, and if I remain unconvinced by the Minister's argument, I will bring the issue back on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 365, in

'(2A) The inability to identify a contribution to achieving sustainable development shall not invalidate any document, strategy, scheme, statement or plan.'.

The amendment need not detain us long. In view of our discussions, if not of those that we could have had if the matter had been brought to us in a sensible time, we have set out our stall by saying that absolutely everything has to be about sustainable development and, if it is not, it is not acceptable. There will always be the possibility that a document, a plan or whatever else it may be, might, under certain circumstances, as a one-off, not have a sustainability element to it. It may be impossible to say that that contributes to sustainability. However, it may necessarily contribute a great deal to the planning process that is being undertaken. The amendment probes the Minister for an explanation of the matter. It states:

''The inability to identify a contribution to achieving sustainable development shall not invalidate''.

Perhaps it would have been better to say that the inability shall not ''necessarily'' invalidate. There could be other reasons why such documents are invalid. Will the Minister explain the position whereby the acceptability of documents does not of itself add to the debate on sustainability?

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

I presume that the amendment seeks to provide a defence to any challenge to the effect that an RSS or local development document has not contributed sufficiently to sustainable development. No formulation used in other legislation qualifies the duties in that way, and the qualification would send out the wrong message. I am not aware that the absence of such a qualification has caused problems in other legislation.

The clause 38 duty on the regional planning body and the local authority is to prepare the RSS and LDDs with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. That was dealt with at length this morning, and rightly so. The duty does not extend to requiring the RPB or local authority to contribute, whatever the circumstances. Provided that the RPB and local authorities have properly

demonstrated a positive intention for the RSS or LDDs to contribute, the duty will be met. The position is almost the reverse of the intention of an earlier amendment, which favoured ''have regard to'', not ''contribute to''. The amendment would weaken, not strengthen, the duty on the RPB and local authority.

I am worried that the amendment could give the message to, or even encourage, RPBs and local authorities to pay lip service to the policy. Given the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I am sure that that is not the intention. I reject the amendment in both practical and policy terms. It refers to an explicit duty to contribute. Bearing in mind the complexities of the environment in which we live, that statutory duty should not be in the Bill. The ability to contribute is important. The amendment would be ineffective. It would not get RPBs and local planning authorities off the hook. Given the message that it would send out and bearing it in mind that sustainability permeates other clauses, I strongly urge, in the context of our broad consensual discussion, that the probing amendment be withdrawn.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

As the Minister rightly said, it was not my intention to send out the wrong message, but to persuade him to say what he has said. If I have understood him correctly, he said that, even without the amendment, it is not the case that each part of the process has to contribute, whatever the circumstances. He said that he could envisage occasional circumstances in which there would not be a contribution, and that was the point on which I was trying to draw him. His remarks will be recorded in Hansard. Now that we know the Government's intentions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.