I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Wyatt on securing this debate on the Kent and Medway structure plan. He is well known as a keen advocate of his Constituency and for bringing issues such as these to the attention of the House.

Given events that may or may not happen in a couple of months' time, I am not surprised by the unusual display of gratitude, recognition and loyalty to the Government by my hon. and learned Friend Mr. Marshall-Andrews. The Government must be congratulated on delivering benefits to the hard-working families of Medway, and indeed Sittingbourne and Sheppey, despite events elsewhere.

My hon. Friend mentioned some specific cases. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on the merits of individual planning cases because of the Secretary of State's appellate responsibilities. If he will forgive me, I will therefore concentrate on the broader planning issues.

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, Kent county council, in partnership with Medway unitary authority, is preparing a new structure plan to cover the period 2001 to 2021, which has been the subject of an examination in public held by an independent panel. I understand that the two strategic planning authorities are still awaiting the panel's report. The authorities decided to continue with a new structure plan, although it will be superseded by the new south-east plan when that is adopted in 2007. In the meantime, local planning authorities in Kent will have to have regard to the structure plan, once it is adopted and until the south-east plan is in place, in preparing their local development frameworks.

My hon. Friend opened his remarks by voicing some concerns about consultation. Let me emphasise that the Kent and Medway structure plan was published as a deposit plan in September 2003. That was preceded by extensive pre-deposit consultation, including the publication in March 2002 of a consultation document entitled "Mapping out the future: Kent and Medway Structure Plan—Future Policy Directions", which was accompanied by publicity and public meetings in every district and borough. All the Kent Members of Parliament were consulted directly at this stage and on the deposit plan in 2003. The "Future Policy Directions" document specifically referred to the development of innovation hubs and clusters and the important links between higher education and research, about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently. A number of locations were discussed in this regard, including the Sittingbourne research centre, now the Kent science park. I shall come back to that later.

My hon. Friend mentioned issues relating to infrastructure, water and so on. It is important to put on the record one point about water. During the consultation, Kent and Medway councils received no representations from the Environment Agency about any insurmountable constraints to development in Swale from a water supply perspective. Evidence to the examination in public confirmed that view, conditional on Kent and Medway structure plan quantities not being exceeded. Decisions by the councils arising from the panel report should be subject to similar consultation processes.

On the need for homes for younger people, older people and key workers in the area, I am aware that the proposed housing numbers in the structure plan for the county as a whole show no significant increase over the previous plan, although there are two growth areas in the county. Indeed, representatives of the Government office for the south-east pointed that out to the examination in public in September last year and argued for higher numbers, in line with the Government's commitment to address the severe housing shortage in the south-east. We await the outcome of that examination in public. The panel is due to report early this year. I regret that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the details of the plan in advance of the report.

The next formal steps in progressing the Kent and Medway structure plan will take place when Kent and Medway councils consider the panel recommendations and propose modifications arising from those recommendations. The proposed modifications will, in turn, be subject to public consultation. Kent and Medway hope to adopt the plan by the end of 2005. I believe that my hon. Friend has made the representations that he spoke about this morning directly to the process. When the modifications are proposed, he will get another bite at the cherry and will be able to re-emphasise his concerns if the modifications do not address them.

There is also a statutory planning process to determine what the revised regional and sub-regional growth levels should be. At this stage, the South East England regional assembly is responsible for examining alternative spatial options as part of the preparation of the new south-east plan, which will include housing figures for districts in Kent. The regional assembly launched a public consultation on the matter on 24 January. I cannot comment at this stage, because my comments would pre-empt the outcome of the consultation and the public inquiry that will follow.

My hon. Friend rightly raised concerns about the infrastructure that will support development. Swale Forward is the local partnership that ensures that the area's infrastructure priorities are delivered effectively. It is co-ordinating a £26 million programme that is supported by the sustainable communities fund. Swale Forward endeavours to ensure that the aims and objectives of its policies and programmes make the appropriate links with other relevant strategies, such as Swale's infrastructure needs, the Swale local plan, the Kent and Medway structure plan and the regional economic strategy.

It is the role of Swale Forward to assess the infrastructure needs of the borough in delivering the required growth and regeneration. It is primarily the responsibility of Swale borough council to ensure, through the local plan and other strategies and plans, that sufficient infrastructure is provided to support agreed levels of housing growth. I am glad that my hon. Friend has put on record some of those developments. Two road schemes are under way—the second Swale crossing and the Sittingbourne northern relief road. Funding from section 106 agreements will support provision of other infrastructure requirements, such as health and education facilities and community needs. It is good to see that a new secondary school has been allocated for Sittingbourne, as well as the secondary school for Sheppey. A new community hospital has also been allocated.

I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the Conservatives' decision to abolish the Thames gateway. That decision will have a massive effect in removing the opportunities for infrastructure development. My hon. Friend is right to point that out. Many of us were taken aback at the Opposition's decision to adopt that policy, which makes no sense. That decision does not fit easily with the simultaneous call of the Conservatives on Kent county council for £9.6 billion of infrastructure regeneration cash. It seems to me that the local and the national are not working easily together.

My hon. Friend mentioned issues around gains from developing land. I emphasise that, in her recent review of housing supply, Kate Barker recommended that section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, which provided for planning gain contributions relating to increased development value resulting directly from the grant of planning permission, be reviewed to provide more certainty and simplicity. I confirm that the Government are considering the option of a planning gain supplement that would, if introduced, address some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised. That debate is under way and I am grateful for his contribution. We will draw it to the attention of relevant Ministers.

My hon. Friend raised a number of key points about the importance of the university development and the way that the structure plan creates the conditions for attracting bioscience and technology investment. I cannot comment on the plan because of my position in the Office of the Deputy prime minister. I draw his attention to parts of the plan that refer specifically to that development, not least to Pfizer, which is one of the companies that he mentioned. The plan identifies Pfizer as a company that may grow and respond to some of the concerns that my hon. Friend raised. However, it is up to us to see what the panel says and consider whether the modifications and developments provide solutions to the problems that he is concerned about.

While I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the make-up of the Kent science park, and the issues that he raised about the highway network, I point out that both Kent county council and Swale borough council support the expansion of that site as a science park.