Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 358, in

schedule 1, page 59, line 24, at end insert

'but must complete a review not later than five years from the adoption of the order or the previous decision of it.'.

This is a fairly straightforward amendment. As with so many of the amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled on the issue of time scales, the purpose is simply to prompt a discussion. If the Minister is persuaded by our arguments in principle but thinks that five years is wrong, we shall not have a ding-dong. However, the principle is important.

At present, there is no time scale for a review, and the amendment suggests five years. When we discussed sustainable development this morning, one recurring theme was that, like so much else, it is an ever changing concept. Scientific knowledge and technology, too, are forever changing; indeed, they seem to be changing at an ever faster rate. At the very outset of the Committee's proceedings, the Minister said that he hoped that the Bill would ensure that regional plans, in particular, were produced much more quickly. He said that the old process was very cumbersome and that things went on for years.

Given that the Minister wants the initial plans to be produced more quickly, we should also turn our attention, through the amendment, to the question of how often revisions should take place. It would be sensible for reviews to take place every five years, even if the conclusion were that nothing needed changing after all. At least a review would have been carried out. That is the spirit behind the time scale suggested in the amendment, which would take account of the Minister's wish for things to happen more quickly. That said, we are not arguing about the actual number of years.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I would like to add my support to the amendment. In a sense, it proposes the local equivalent of a sunset clause. I am generally in favour of such clauses, because there is far too much legislation lying around that is out of date, or not used. It would be sensible to review orders after a reasonable time. We can argue about the number of years, but the amendment is worthy.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said. We discussed such a provision in a previous debate, and it is important to hold reviews and specify when they are to take place. The period would be calculated not from when the authority last held a review but from when the order was approved. I would stick with a period of five years, and the local planning authority should

review its order within that time to see what changes should be made to bring it up to date.

I would not describe the proposal as a sunset clause; it is anything but. As I understand it, a sunset clause means that legislation ceases to have effect after a certain period. None the less, I understand what the hon. Member for Ludlow says, and I fully support the amendment.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proposal in the amendment is not a sunset clause by any means. If it were, however, the sun would have gone down four years before, as we will see.

The amendment is completely erroneous and irrelevant. I entirely agree with the thrust of what hon. Members have said about local planning authorities needing to check regularly to ensure that local development plans are still appropriate. The amendment refers to a period of five years, but paragraph 4 of suggested new schedule 4A clearly states:

''The report made under section 34 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003 must include a report as to the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''

In other words, these orders, like many other provisions, must be reviewed annually, and I do not understand why we would want to change from annual to quinquennial reviews. I should have thought that the Committee would be entirely pleased and satisfied with annual reviews, and would not want to extend the period by a further four years.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

It seems to me that the distinction the Minister is drawing is erroneous in itself. He referred to an annual report, but the amendment refers to revising a local development order. Those strike me as very different things, even if that is not how it seems to the Minister.

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

The clause provides that the annual report must state

''the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''

Whether an order is revised, devised or anything else, it needs to be reviewed annually. We shall require local planning authorities to report annually to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales on the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes. Given that we have provided for an annual review of an original or revised decision—the amendment is slightly confusing on that point—a quinquennial review is unnecessary and the amendment should be withdrawn.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I apologise for intervening again, but as I understand clause 34, the annual report will monitor the progress of the local development plan, whereas we are suggesting that the whole document should be reviewed so that changes can be made if necessary. Some of those might be significant and bring about a change in direction after five years. Clause 34 is entitled ''Annual monitoring report''. There is a world of difference between monitoring and making revisions.

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

With the greatest respect, clause 34 refers to an annual report, and paragraph 4(1) of proposed new schedule 4A clearly states that the report

''must include a report as to the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''

Whether that is the original LDO or a revised LDO, the local development order needs to be reviewed annually to see whether it is achieving what it set out to achieve. Given that provision has already been made for an annual review, I see no reason for a separate five-year review of local development orders. The Bill proposes five for the price of one—five reviews of any revisions, modifications or original submissions of LDOs—but hon. Members seem to be arguing that they want not five reviews every five years but one review every five years. I agree that there should be an annual review, but I do not understand why hon. Members think review should take place every five years, rather than annually.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am afraid that the Minister does not persuade me at all.

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

Of course not.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would have noticed that once or twice today I have said that I have been persuaded by what he has said. On this occasion, however, I think that he is wrong, and in due course I shall invite my colleagues to support me in pressing the matter to a vote.

The Minister referred to clause 34, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, is about an annual monitoring report. I am delighted by that. Once a year a report will be produced to say how things are going. It is possible that the report will say that things are not going very well. Paragraph 4(1) of proposed new schedule 4A states that the report will cover

''the extent to which the local development order is achieving its purposes.''

I readily accept that the report might say that the plan is failing. Both the clause and the proposed new schedule imply that something might need to be done, but neither state what might be done.

As it stands, using his jackboot powers, the Secretary of State may order the authority to act on the annual report by carrying out a revision. However, paragraph 2(1) of proposed new schedule 4A refers to something entirely different. It states:

''The local planning authority may at any time prepare a revision of a local development order.''

There is a world of difference between a monitoring report, or an annual report on progress, and

''a revision of a local development order'',

which may be prepared at any time. That is not monitoring or a review but an actual statement of what must be done.

If, as the Minister says, paragraph 4(1) provides for the annual preparation of a revision of a local development order, why do we have the provision in paragraph 2(1)? He argues that we do not need to set time limits because a report is provided for once a

year. If he is right, there is no need for the provision in proposed new schedule 4A, but there is a need for my amendment. Therefore, I am not persuaded by his argument.

At present, if something goes wrong—if the annual reports indicate a failure of the plan, the strategy or something else—the only power available is for the Secretary of State to step in and order a revision. The amendment would make it automatic that instead of an annual report, a revision would be prepared once every five years, even if nothing had happened in the meantime.

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

I am keen to find out where amendment No. 358 provides for what the hon. Gentleman has just described. It does not mention revision or any action that is to follow on after the completion of a review at a time

''not later than five years''

afterwards. I am perplexed. Where does the amendment mention the action to which he has just referred?

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The action follows from the words:

''The local planning authority may at any time prepare a revision''.

The preparation of the revision is provided for, and the amendment would mean that that had to be done within five years rather than simply ''at any time'', as the schedule says.

If the Minister does not understand the amendment, I am not surprised that he does not agree with it. However, if he were to reflect on it, he would find that I am actually being sensible and that there is a difference between the preparation of a revision and the publication of an annual report. If he is not prepared to agree with me, I shall invite the Committee to vote on the matter.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Paragraph 1(2) states:

''Regulations under this paragraph may include provision as to—''

and then lists five items. I make my perennial request to the Minister as to whether at some convenient stage—I hope that it will be before Report—we might see a draft copy of the regulations. If the Secretary of State is to have 23 powers in the Bill, of which this is

one, it is incumbent on the Minister to provide the Committee and Parliament with a copy of the draft regulations.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I hope that I shall not be out of order in raising this point on schedule 1 stand part. If the legislation gets on to the statute book, it will make fundamental changes to our town and country planning laws and regulations. Schedule 4 will make amendments to at least a dozen other Acts of Parliament. I have a thought for the Minister, although it is not a question for him to answer now. When this measure is on the statute book, it might be worth while introducing a consolidation Bill, perhaps next year, to incorporate this measure into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the principal Act now being amended.

I put that forward as a constructive suggestion. I know that at the moment, schedule 1 introduces a new schedule 4A to that principal Act. In time, however, that could perhaps become schedule 5, with the other schedules renumbered. A consolidation Bill following the enactment of this measure would bring greater simplicity to, and understanding of, our town and country planning legislation.

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

I concede the logic of that point. I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman could have a word with the usual channels on our side and we could be given the scope to introduce an omnibus consolidation town and country planning Bill, containing all the measures that we want to introduce on compulsory purchase as well. I can see the legislative logic of that—although I should add when I say that I am wearing my non-ministerial, humble MP's hat.

My perennial response to the hon. Member for Cotswold is that I will endeavour to do my best. I take his point. Finally, I cannot believe that amendment No. 358, moved by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, is really meant to say:

''or the previous decision of it''.

I should be grateful if, after the sitting, he can tell me whether he meant it to say ''revision'' rather than ''decision''. That was part of the reason for my confusion about the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.