Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I seek your guidance, but I assume that an amendment can be moved by any Committee member.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

I discussed that with the Clerk. There appears to be a number of amendments tabled by people who are not serving on the Committee, but as those amendments have been selected it is quite in order if Committee members wish to speak to them and it is a matter for them if they actually want to move them.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 88, page 60, line 34, leave out from ‘to’ to end of line 35 and insert—

‘(a) promoting the sustainable economic development and regeneration of its area, and

(b) contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.’.

The amendment is in line with a debate that we had about an earlier amendment, which I think was tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). That sought to strengthen the Bill’s wording regarding sustainable development. We were seeking to press a power, or duty, on the responsible regional authority, the RDA and the leaders’ board in their development of a regional strategy. If we are to have economic prosperity boards carrying out similar work on economic development in their areas, the same principle applies and we would feel more comfortable if a more explicit duty were placed upon them to carry out sustainable economic development.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment contains the phrase:

“contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

The Minister said in an earlier debate that she felt the point was covered—that the Secretary of State could issue general guidance and that that guidance would, no doubt, be in accord with meeting those aims. However, given that the Bill establishes these bodies, it would be good if those key duties were imposed from the outset for any such bodies that come into existence.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on that point. All members of the Committee will doubtless agree that it would be entirely counter-productive to the long-term well-being of the sub-region for “economic development”, in that context, to mean anything other than sustainable economic development—in other words, development that is within environmental limits and that enhances environmental and social welfare in the area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our statutory guidance will make it clear that that is precisely what we mean. I hope that reassures him and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for that. Although we are attempting to make some progress—I will behave myself, as I said I would, when it comes to not repeating votes on general principles—this is an important matter. There is a great deal of feeling outside this place that not enough emphasis is placed on this issue. As the title  of the boards suggests, they are about economic prosperity. That is important, and I hope they will make a significant contribution to that duty. However, other important considerations also need to be borne in mind, among which this matter is perhaps paramount, so I would like to divide the Committee on the amendment.

Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

Given that the Minister did not rise to her feet to introduce the clause, I thought I would raise a point put to the Committee by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. In a submission that I and other Members of the Committee have received, it argues that clause 88 will, as it makes clear, allow functions to be passed to EPBs. The CPRE wrote:

“We do not believe that planning powers should be passed to the EPBs. The planning system should not, and cannot, be focused solely on delivering economic growth.”

In arguing that the planning system cannot be solely concentrated on delivering economic growth, I am sure the CPRE is right, but I am not sure whether the Opposition agree entirely with the CPRE. If local authorities voluntarily wish to work together on planning, they should be allowed to do so. I do not entirely follow the CPRE’s argument in that respect. Having said that, I ask the Minister to say what functions an EPB can gather to itself, because I think the Committee would find that useful.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I hope that I can give some assurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is up to local authorities to set out the functions that they wish to pass to an EPB across their area. They may decide that their EPB should play a part in spatial planning, most likely through co-operation in the production of regional development frameworks. It is very unlikely that local authorities would propose ceding power to make particular planning decisions to an EPB, or that the Secretary of State would agree to such an arrangement. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are clear about wanting the link between planning decisions and direct local democratic accountability to be maintained.