Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

HL Deb 24 February 2004 vol 658 cc196-224

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)

My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 33, I must inform your Lordships that if it is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 34 for reasons of pre-emption.

Clause 7 [RSS: Secretary of State's functions]:

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 33: Page 4, line 9, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert— (3) Before publishing the revision of the RSS, the Secretary of State shall cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as he considers ought to be examined, unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 33 and not to Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 which will not be moved tonight.

As I have just said, in this grouping I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 33. The Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion whether to hold an examination in public into revisions of an RSS. The discretion is put in fairly general terms. He could decline to hold an examination in public in a wide variety of circumstances.

The examination is a very important part of the process. It enables local authorities and interest groups to argue the merits of a draft RSS before an independent person and to seek recommendations that changes be made. It should only be in respect of minor uncontentious changes—effectively tidying up—that an examination will be unnecessary. This seems in practice to be the Secretary of State's view. The consultation draft Planning Policy Statement 11 states that in paragraph 230: There is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held and it is only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in [old] Clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary".

Our amendment better reflects the Secretary of State's intention than subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7 as drafted. The Bill could be used to deny examinations in public on significant and contentious issues. Our amendment would safeguard the safeguard, as it were. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I shall speak only to Amendment No. 33. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 33 would amend Clause 7 to require an examination in public to be held unless the draft revision is minor and inconsequential and would delete subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7. The amendment seeks to achieve almost precisely the same thing as the two subsections that it would delete—that an examination in public will be held except where the changes proposed to the regional spatial strategy are so minor and routine that the effort and expense involved would not be justified.

We believe though that the current wording of the Bill is better than that proposed in the amendment. The extent of previous consultation and the level of interest shown in a draft, though we would expect those to be in line with the importance of the revision, could be important factors in their own right. A revision might be minor but still contentious. In those circumstances there should be an examination in public.

The Bill as drafted would allow for that, so one has to be careful. I do not believe that there is anything between us on the principle of this issue, but we want to allow for circumstances such as when a revision might be minor, but could still be contentious for certain sections or groups. Therefore, one would justifiably hold an examination in public. On that basis, unless the noble Lord has any further point, I hope he will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that there is not really any difference between us. We just want to make certain that where there could be a minor but contentious issue, there should be an examination in public. I am pleased to note his comments, which will appear in Hansard. It is important that it is on the record, because there needs to be the right examination in public in the right circumstances at the right time. Clarity is important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Clause 8 [RSS: examination in public]:

[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]

Clause 9 [RSS: future procedure]:

[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 40: Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to withdraw a draft revision of the RSS on the basis that it is not his document to withdraw.

I was minded not to return to this issue because the Minister gave us a helpful response in Committee. However, on reflection, three important questions remain, which I ask the Minister to clarify. The first goes right to the heart of the Bill. Who owns the regional spatial strategy? Clause 1 makes it clear that the policy is the strategy of the Secretary of State. The provision implies that the document itself belongs to the Secretary of State. That cannot be the case. Regional spatial strategies are developed and prepared by regional planning bodies. The strategy must be owned by the RPB, not the Secretary of State.

The second question is whether, if subsection (7) is to be used to stop the RSS revision process grinding on when a change has occurred that was so fundamental—such as a radical new economic or waste strategy—it would be better and more pragmatic to go back to one or two stages. That is the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, used by way of illustration. If that happened, would it not be better and less prescriptive for the regional planning body to step in and withdraw the draft revision of the RSS so that it could incorporate the new developments? I believe that, in some ways, this is an extension of my first question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify those points in a moment.

My third question is: will the Secretary of State be able to exercise his powers under subsection (7) only after the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy has been presented to him or will he be able to intervene at an earlier stage when it is still the case that the RPB could withdraw the draft revision under Clause 6(7)?

If the latter interpretation prevails, I wish to reiterate our serious reservations about the centralising tendency—the overwhelming top-down approach—of the whole RSS revision process. The planning system should work from the bottom up. It is that quality that has made it so successful in the past.

If there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State withdrawing the draft revision of the RSS when that would properly be the decision of the RPB, I believe that we may need to consider this issue again before the Bill completes its passage. However, I would like to have the Minister's answers to these questions now. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, so would I. Amendment No. 40 would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy at any time before he publishes the final version. That would prevent the revision process being rewound if that is the best option. Even if everyone could see that the current draft revision should not be pursued, that would have to happen in any case. Therefore, a real problem arises there.

Clause 9(7) is a pragmatic provision to prevent the revision process grinding on when, for reasons such as those that I have just mentioned, it needs to go back a stage or, indeed, several stages. Clause 6(7) similarly allows the regional planning body to withdraw a draft revision at any stage before it submits it to the Secretary of State for the same reasons.

Therefore, with regard to the first question concerning who owns the regional spatial strategy, the answer is the regional planning body because, as we said in our debates before the dinner break, the RPB is the initiator. It is true that, ultimately, the Secretary of State gives the imprimatur promulgation but, of course, that is only after the examination has taken place in public.

Clause 9(7) states: But the Secretary of State may withdraw a draft revision … at any time before he publishes the revision". However, the point is that he will only be able to do that after it has been given to him by the regional planning body. He will not have seen it before it is submitted to him and therefore it would be unreasonable to withdraw it. Thus, he could take that action only when the draft revision had been given to him by the regional planning body, when, presumably, it would have gone through all its processes. According to the answer that I have just given, he could not step back in the process while it was going on and stop something that he had not seen or had submitted to him. The Secretary of State cannot direct a withdrawal before the draft regional spatial strategy is submitted to him.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which goes back to my own example. The Government have announced that they want another runway and a big extension at Stansted airport in Essex. Therefore, if we were in the new world of regional spatial policies and other planning policies, obviously there would have to be a revision which the Government would have initiated because they had announced that they wanted a runway. Surely the Secretary of State would have to ask for a revision of the planning policies because another Minister—in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport—had suggested a runway. That does not really cover the issue. The Minister is saying that the policy would come from the region but, if the Government had initiated such a major change, surely they would then have to ask for a revision of the strategy.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Rooker

Yes, my Lords. That is on the assumption that there is a procedure under way. There may not be. There may be a regional spatial strategy. There is no revision, there is no review going on. In other words, there is no process. Obviously, looking at the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 9, which is headed "RSS: further procedure", that would arise only in those circumstances.

However, I am not so sure because the airport must come under major infrastructure projects. I am not using this as a defensive answer, although it is the reasonable one because it is a big example. In terms of proposals, a new motorway, airport or, dare I say it, a nuclear power station would probably be classed as a major project to be dealt with under the procedures set out much later the Bill. I am not sure whether simply proposing, in the case that the noble Lord gives, an expansion of an existing airport—there is already an airport there in the example that he used—would be covered by that. I do not know at the moment. It is certainly a major infrastructure project; that I can clearly understand. Whether that would amount to having to redraw the whole of the regional spatial strategy, I cannot say off the top of my head. It is something that I shall get advice on beforehand. I understand the concern.

In fact, I am a bit surprised that the proposals for Stansted have not figured more in our deliberations. It is due to the incredible professionalism of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in not pushing his own local backyard issues from the Dispatch Box. That is a tribute.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. We shall read his answers very carefully and he has indicated that he will look at the matter again before we discuss these issues again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Secretary of State: additional powers]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 41: Page 5, line 31, at end insert— ( ) Before taking any step under subsection (1), (3) or (5) the Secretary of State shall consult the RPB and shall seek the advice of each authority in the region which is an authority falling within section 5(3).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 provides that before the Secretary of State directs an RPB to prepare a draft revision or prepares it, if the RPB fails to comply with various matters, including that direction, or revokes an RSS or part of it he, shall consult the RPB and shall seek the advice of each authority in the region", which is essentially a county or unitary district, as already identified in the earlier clause as amended.

So, if the Secretary of State decides that he wants five runways at Stansted and wants to change the RSS to provide for it, he has to come and talk to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I think that the Minister underestimates the forcefulness of his refusal to get dragged into any current issues when Stansted was last mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, probably feels that he has come to the end of the runway on that one.

When we were debating Clause 10 in Committee, the Minister stressed that these overarching powers were only reserve powers and that the Government would not expect that the Secretary of State would ever need to give a direction to a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision. He said twice that, revisions … are not something that will be governed by central diktat".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. 1172.] He also said that this was a sensible safeguard, that a reserve power was the best way of dealing with it and that he would use the powers of direction only in exceptional circumstances.

As I said earlier, unwillingly acknowledging—I was about to say accepting, but acknowledging is closer to the mark—that the role of the Secretary of State was written for him by the Government in all this, I am seeking to insert a degree of consultation and communication with both the regional planning body that the Secretary of State will have judged not to be doing the job and with relevant authorities before he takes the step.

We may hear that the Secretary of State would do that without being told to do so by the legislation. I simply make the point I made on an earlier amendment; that is, that if the Minister can get out of his mind the image of his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister as being the current Secretary of State and think of the worst possible example, that is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, this is almost a case of déjà vu. I shall make clear for the record that we would not expect the Secretary of State ever to have to direct a regional planning body to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy or to prepare one himself. As I have said before, these provisions are in the Bill simply as a safeguard. What happens now and will continue to happen in the future is that the regional planning body will discuss with the government office when a revision is needed and the kind of topics it should cover and take the revision forward on that basis. That goes back to our discussion on an earlier amendment: why should they tell anyone that they are going to do it? First there will be an examination in public. Someone has to organise the planning inspectorate. They have to be aware of providing staff and resources to do that, so there is good reason to discuss it with the government office.

Similarly, the power to revoke all or part of the regional spatial strategy is a procedural safeguard. There might be occasions when part of the regional spatial strategy had become seriously out of date before a new revision could be completed and it would be helpful in the interests of clarity if it was revoked. Any revocation is something that would be done in discussion with the regional planning body and as a matter of good practice the Government would always give reasons for the action taken.

To impose a requirement to seek advice and consult before exercising powers that are included in the Bill as a safeguard, frankly is unreasonable. Nor do we see any case for this in principle. The powers are there as a safeguard. If they ever have to be used it would be in the most exceptional circumstances and reasons would be given. I do not think that one can ask for more than that. I shall stop singing my right honourable friend's praises in case he gets the wrong idea.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, if the powers are there as a procedural safeguard, why do we not put in a procedural safeguard that the Secretary of State will do what the Minister says he will do? It is another case where the parliamentary draftsmen might put their drafting where the Minister's mouth is. I recognise that we are not going to make progress on this and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]

Clause 12 [Supplementary]:

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 44: Page 6, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment in Committee the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, hinted that I was a conspiracy theorist, so it is important that I clarify my reasons for coming back to this issue of who is the relevant Secretary of State for the purposes of regional spatial strategies. I reassure your Lordships that with this amendment I am genuinely questioning this legislation's adaptability in relation to future governance arrangements rather than pursuing a conspiracy theory.

I understand that the way Clause 12(4) defines the Secretary of State by function is unusual in a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did partly answer my query in Committee. The Minister explained that the purpose of defining the Secretary of State in this way was to ensure that Clause 2(2) cannot be interpreted as requiring policies prepared by any other Secretary of State to be included in the regional spatial strategy if those policies relate to the development and use of land in the region. So, for example, the regional spatial strategy will not contain the policies of Secretaries of State for Education or Health, because even though they relate to land use, they are not primarily concerned with it. I think that that is right and I have no argument with that aspect of Clause 12(4).

However, I remain concerned about why there is no mention of regions in the definition of "Secretary of State" in Clause 12(4). In subsection (4) the Secretary of State is defined as the Secretary of State who has for the time being, general responsibility for policy in relation to the development and use of land". At the moment that Secretary of State happens also to have responsibility for the regions.

We know that Prime Ministers and all governments rearrange ministerial responsibilities. So, if that situation were to change, would the Secretary of State who is in charge of general policy on planning always necessarily be the right Minister to lead on regional spatial strategies, as opposed to the Secretary of State responsible for the regions? There is my own situation with the Conservative shadow team. We now have a Minister responsible for the regions.

Part 1 of the Bill deals solely with the regional spatial strategies. In other words, it deals with land use, planning, houses, infrastructure and so on for particular regions. It does not deal with general planning policy—those provisions come later in the Bill—for example, on compulsory purchase or major infrastructure projects or simplified planning zones. I would have thought that was a very good argument for putting regional spatial strategies firmly in the orbit of whichever Secretary of State happens to be in charge of the regions.

I would simply be interested to know from the Minister why the Government have chosen not to do that. If the explanation is simply that in the current circumstances it makes no difference, thus we need not worry about it, I ask why the regions are not added to the existing definition of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord has a problem with the notion of adaptability. He says that at the moment it happens to be a happy coincidence that regions and planning are in the same place. That might not be the case in the future. I think that the answer is that we have to deal with what is in front of us. It is impossible to envisage every change of circumstances.

Currently we have that happy coincidence and it is important. In any event, I think that one could safely argue that a Secretary of State with overall responsibility for planning would always play a leading role in regional matters. So, I certainly understand what the noble Lord is saying and the point he is getting at. He has explained it rather better this evening than he did the last time we went around this course. I am not making any allegations here. It would be wrong of me to do so. I do not think that the noble Lord sees conspiracies everywhere; he is not that kind of person. I was being slightly facetious.

Our view is that whoever has general responsibility for the planning system—not the geographical units of those plans—must be finally accountable for the policies in a regional spatial strategy, particularly where there is no regional assembly. That is after all the key point of a system which is reliant on regional spatial planning.

So I understand the point, but I think that at the moment we are content with the structure we have set up. It falls to the Secretary of State with that responsibility to ensure that all others who have a bearing on regional planning in different ways are aware of their overall role in pulling things together, co-ordinating them and ensuring that the regions function well and in a coherent way. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He obviously realised the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps I did not make it well the first time round. We are concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said several times, not just with the current situation. The previous planning legislation lasted for many years, although it may have been tinkered with. Once planning legislation has been set in place it is not changed lightly because that is a complicated process. It could well be that, as in the shadow Conservative team, the jobs are separated. I have noted what the Minister has said. The Government may like to reconsider the matter before Third Reading to see whether there should be slightly more clarity about any future circumstance. However, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9 p.m.

Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 45: Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

"COMMENCEMENT OF PART 2

Part 2 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a guide to its provisions designed for the general public."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 45 inserts a new clause, which states that: Part 2 shall not come into force until the Secretary of Slate has published a guide to its provisions designed for the general public". At the previous stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Hamwee introduced a debate on understanding and plain English. I know that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had a great deal of sympathy with her point. He gave some assurances that, with officials in his department, he would discuss how we could get into the public domain a guide to the changes in the planning system that ordinary people—those who do not necessarily live with the matter day to day—could understand. Some of us have lived with the matter on a day-to-day basis for quite some time and it has become a little clearer. This is a new system and it is important that people understand it. If the community is to be properly involved in the consultation, people need to be able to understand it.

This amendment may not be the appropriate way in which to deal with the matter, but I hope that it will give the Minister a chance to tell us what action he has taken since we last discussed the issue. He said that he would take this hack to his department as he believed that it was important that we had a plain English guide to the new system and to the new hierarchy in planning legislation. I hope that he will be able to report favourably on those discussions and that something will be forthcoming, even if not in the form of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I have a simple and positive answer for the noble Baroness. We absolutely agree that there is a need for guidance for what I shall call the person in the street. In the past I would have said "the man in the street", but now we talk about persons. I am very happy to give an assurance that we shall work to produce a guide, not just for Part 2, but for the whole reform system for the person in the street in time for commencement. I cannot be clearer than that. I think it would be overkill to legislate for it in this way. I hope that my statement will be accepted.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, when my noble friend and I were talking about this amendment, I had no serious expectation that it would appear on the face of the Bill. As it is important, perhaps I can check what the Minister has said. He says, "We shall work towards that". Is that an assurance that the Government will publish before commencement? I am not trying to trip him up; I want to be clear about the assurance.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I understand the qualification. I am happy to give an assurance that we shall work to produce a guide, not just for Part 2, but for the reform system as a whole in time for commencement. We shall work to produce a guide for the whole Bill in time for commencement.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, my noble friend is whispering to me, "Does that mean that it will actually happen?" We will have to take the Minister at face value and hope that what he says will become reality. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 46: Page 7, line 34, leave out from second "development" to end of line 35.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we are back to county issues again. We are seeking to maintain the strategic dimension of the county planning function as it relates to undertaking a survey. I received a helpful letter from the Minister setting out exactly what a "county matter" means in the context of Clause 14. I thank the Minister for that letter, which was also sent to other noble Lords and the Library of the House.

The letter makes it clear that Clause 14(1) and (2) provide a survey function for county councils to underpin their responsibilities for mineral and waste planning only. The county councils' other responsibilities, such as highways and transportation, are not conceived as relevant to this clause. The letter goes on to say that when the county councils advise and are consulted on regional spatial strategies—this is slightly imprecise, surely the Minister means when county councils are consulted on the revision of regional spatial strategies, but I let that pass—and when they are consulted on local development documents, these are the processes through which the county councils properly influence plan-making and have their wide range of responsibilities taken into account in so far as they affect development and the planning of development in their area.

Clause 19(2)(g) provides for local planning authorities to have regard to county councils' community strategies in two-tier areas. I was pleased to see this part of the letter from the Minister that in the Government's view community strategies are particularly important. I know from my experience that a tremendous amount of work is going into councils' community strategies. They are totally relevant to everything that happens in a county area and partnerships with districts and voluntary bodies, and there is a tremendous amount of work going into these community strategies. They are very relevant indeed.

This is a comprehensive response, and we appreciate that these various processes are in place. However, the central question remains why the Government are curtailing the county councils' survey function so greatly. Why do they insist on pursuing policies that consistently undermine their own objectives for local government? This is not the way to achieve joined-up services. County councils have a general duty to seek to promote the economic, environmental and social well being of their communities, by drawing up community strategies that are focused not narrowly on particular functions, but are designed to be outward-looking.

We are attempting to use our place in the community to exercise leadership for all our citizens. Reducing this survey function does not help us, our partners or districts to achieve cross-cutting objectives or better service delivery. District councils might welcome monitoring support from county councils. This provision also threatens to undermine the retention of planning resources in the local government system. It is a bad idea, and I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we keep coming back to the issue of county councils. I hope that I can be positive in my explanation. Certainly, I will use the material that I have, so that it is helpful for Third Reading if need be. I hope that we can put this one to rest in the end.

Clause 14 provides for local authorities with minerals and waste planning responsibilities—which are county councils in two-tier areas—to keep under review matters that are likely to affect mineral and waste development, or the planning of that development. These are referred to as the "county matters". Amendment No. 46 removes the reference to county matters, and the effect would be to require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the county boundary.

We recognise that some small districts might be stretched to undertake full survey work. We have discussed the role of the counties, and I reiterate that they will play an important role with survey work being one of those aspects where county councils can contribute.

Clause 14(3) provides for the Secretary of State to require by regulations or direct a county council to keep under review the wider matters relating to land use planning and development referred to in Clause 13(2). The draft regulations propose that the matters to be kept under review are those set out in Clause 13(2)(a) and (c) to (e) and that the results should be made available to local planning authorities.

It would be inappropriate to specify in the Bill that all counties must review all matters in respect of all the areas of district councils in the county. That would be ridiculous, given the context of the Bill. It would remove ownership of the process from the district, even though the work is essential for preparing local development documents. It would also take no account of the different circumstances or capacities of district councils; indeed, it would treat them all the same.

Our approach can be adapted to particular circumstances. The issues that a county would need to keep under review may change over time, as the new planning system evolves. The beauty of the regulations is that they provide the flexibility to adapt to that. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, but I must put on the record again a sentence that I used before, as it may help those who assist with the drafting of opposition amendments: by removing the reference to county matters, Amendment No. 46 would require the county council to review planning matters and undertake survey work for areas of all district councils within the boundary. There would be a requirement to review for all district councils within the boundary. That cannot be what the noble Lord intended with his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, that is how we operate in Essex. With our county community partnership, we are involved with each district partnership. In fact, we pay for a lot of the work that the districts do. We have local service agreements under which we work with district councils. We share responsibility. They take some services from us, and we work in partnership to develop legal services and purchasing services.

Some of the discussions that we have had suggest that people do not realise how the two-tier system works. There is a partnership between the district councils and the county council, and it has changed a lot in the past couple of years. The development of the well-being clause and the development of the community strategies have changed the whole process, even the comprehensive performance assessment process. This week, every district in Essex is having a CPA. The Audit Commission asks me how we work with each district council, as part of the CPA process. Things have changed so much.

I think that, when the Government were drawing up their regional planning policies, they did not realise how their earlier local government Bills would operate. What we are doing now relates to the local government Bill before last. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was not responsible for it; he was not doing that job then. We are operating in the spirit that the Government wanted, and it has changed the relationship between districts and counties remarkably: it has improved it. We are involved in the process with every district council in Essex, and I suggest that we continue with what is happening in a sensible way in the best interests of the community in the county. The problem with much of the Bill is that local government has moved on in the two or three years since people started talking about planning policies.

I am not content with what the Minister said. We will have to come back to the matter with some vigour at Third Reading. We need to set out clearly what is happening, and we do not want to undo the good that is being done, in the process of developing community strategies in local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 47: After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—

"LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

(1) The local planning authority must prepare a plan for their area to be known as a local development plan.

(2) The plan must set out—

1. (a) the authority's objectives in relation to the development and use of land in their area;
2. (b) their general policies for the implementation of those objectives.

(3) The plan may also set out specific policies in relation to any part of the area of the authority.

(4) Regulations under this section may prescribe the form and content of the plan.

(5) In preparing a local development plan, the authority must have regard to—

1. (a) current national policies;
2. (b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;
3. (c) the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;
4. (d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;
5. (e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;
6. (f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;
7. (g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;
8. (h) the resources likely to be available for implementing the plan;
9. (i) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

(6) The authority must also—

1. (a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the plan;
2. (b) prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal.

(7) The community strategy is the strategy prepared by an authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (strategies for promoting well-being).

(8) A plan is a local development plan only in so far as it—

1. (a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development plan;
2. (b) is approved by the Secretary of State."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister thought that I was going to be quiet all day. I have had a lovely day—just think of the time that I spent listening carefully. It is my turn now.

We moved a large number of amendments in Committee to try to clarify the bewildering number of documents that would come before councils and authorities in bringing together the planning development scheme. Those amendments did not find much favour with the Government, so I shall try to adopt a different tactic.

We have a fair number of amendments here again, but their aim is to replace the cumbersome and confusing system of local development schemes, frameworks, documents, and development plan documents. with a single, simple, local development plan for each local authority. It replaces the proposed English system with a simpler Welsh system, proposed in Part 6 of this Bill, making necessary adjustments to reflect the different forms of spatial planning in the two countries.

The Government have said that they want to achieve simplicity in planning and to "de-layer" the planning system. The Bill as it stands risks replacing the removal of structure plans with a whole range of previously unheard of documents, schemes, frameworks and plans.

Announcing the publication of the Bill on 4 December 2002, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described the changes as including new roles for both business and the community. He said, The lack of clarity in the system makes the outcome of decision-making unclear and it hurts business. Planning needs to reconnect with people. It is seen as remote and difficult to understand. It is seen as a system set out for the convenience of planners, not consumers". I am sure that the noble Lord finds those words ringing in his mind, as he recollects them.

The Government propose that the local development framework shall be set out in a local development plan scheme comprising local development documents, some of which are development plan documents; namely, the core strategy, area action plans and a proposals map. Other documents will be local development documents but not the development plan documents, namely supplementary planning documents. A statement of community involvement will be treated as a development plan document—sometimes.

These documents will require sustainability appraisal and may need strategic environmental assessment. The development plan will be the development plan documents plus the regional spatial strategy or spatial development strategy. Noble Lords are still with me on all this, I hope! Or, to put it in the Government's own acronyms in a document entitled Creating Local Development Frameworks, the LDF shall be set out in an LDS, comprising LDDs, some of which are DPDs, namely the CS, AAPs and a proposals map. Other documents will be LDDs but not DPDs, namely SPDs, and the SCI, although the SCI will be treated as a DPD—sometimes. These documents will require SA and may need SEA. The DP will be the DPDs plus the RSS or SDS.

There must be a better way of dealing with this serious aspect of planning and planning control.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, are they affected by STV?

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, that could be included as well!

The proposals are not only difficult to understand but are not set up for the convenience of planners or the comprehensibility of anybody trying to deal with the planning system.

This proposal for a new set of documents to replace the widely understood concept of a local plan does not come from practitioners in the field. This simplifying amendment is supported by the Town and Country Planning Association, which includes over 100 local planning authorities within its membership, and Friends of the Earth, which represents some of the many users of the planning system.

These amendments closely follow proposals by the Town and Country Planning Association, with some tweaking by us, and removal of the binding nature of inspectors' reports. The proposals for this complex local development framework scheme have been widely criticised by developers, who find them extremely hard to understand.

In Wales, where the Minister responsible for this subject in the Welsh Assembly is a professional planner, they have been too wise to contemplate such a proposal. The amendments, which are based entirely on the system proposed for Wales, would bring the benefits to England of the system that the Principality will enjoy.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Committee that, the provisions of Part 6 have been developed through close cooperation between the United Kingdom Government"— that sounds good— and the Assembly with the goal of achieving planning reform in a way that reflects the Assembly's aspirations as to how the planning system should operate in Wales. I am sure the noble Lord knows that as Part 6 stands, it enjoys enthusiastic, all-party support in Wales".—[Official Report, 5/2/04; col. 890.] Regrettably, Part 2 of the Bill does not command all-party support—I am sure the Minister understands that now. There is no enthusiasm for it in England. The response of local councils and planning professionals to the proposals is generally one of complete dismay at its complexity. An unamended and complex system of the kind proposed by the Government will militate against community involvement.

These amendments, though many, seek to bring clarity where there is confusion and approachability where there are acronyms. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, that is not bad in six minutes. I am tempted to play the noble Baroness at her own game and read out some of the 50-odd amendments, which are written in gobbledegook.

In Committee, I had a single sheet of A4 paper with a little diagram explaining how each document fed into the other—some were statutory, some were not. I am quite happy to make it available if we can find it.

The noble Baroness can have a bit of fun with all her initials. Fancy sitting there all day, waiting for that point. She comes along, with a proposal from the Conservative Party, to impose on England what has been chosen by the elected Welsh Assembly, for Wales. Why does it fit for Wales? The first reason is unitary local government. I have seen no proposal for unitary English government from the Conservative Party. The noble Baroness did not imply that that was part and parcel of it. In other words, the system works in Wales because the governance arrangements and the local government structure are different there, and the devolved Welsh Assembly chose to use it.

I do not know who the Minister is in charge of planning, but the noble Baroness seems to set great store by the fact that that person is a professional planner. Ministers who are experts are dangerous people. That is not an attack on that Minister. Ministers do not need to be experts—that is quite dodgy.

The Welsh Assembly chose this system for Wales to fit its local government structure. We do not have the same structure in England, and it certainly would not work here.

I made a lengthy speech in Committee, and if I shared the notes with the noble Baroness, which I am not about to do, we would be here for the rest of the night. I described the new system, explaining it in words that could be easily understood, instead of all those acronyms she used. Using acronyms is very confusing to people outside. So far, during the Bill's proceedings, I have never once, on Second Reading or in Committee, fallen into the trap of using acronyms. The Civil Service loves acronyms—there are catalogues of them—but they do not explain things in the way that people need to understand them.

I do not want to go over this in great detail, because I would be repeating what I said about how each document is structured, how each document is formulated, how one document leads to another, how it is a portfolio system of a set of documents which makes them incredibly flexible, and how some of them will be subject to examination in public while others will not because they are subsidiary or daughter documents. I thought that I had explained that perfectly satisfactorily. Quite clearly, the map that I was using at the time is not available. What we need on Report with this type of operation is a screen at the end of the Chamber so that we can explain things more easily than is possible by reading out lists of acronyms.

We operate a plan-led system. We must have comprehensive up-to-date plans and we believe that the new system will enable that. The noble Lady may want to defend the present system, but I remind her that, 14 years after the system was put in place, 29 local planning authorities have yet to adopt an area-wide development plan for their districts. That is an absolute disgrace. Exacerbated by the time it takes to put plans in place, with a complicated process of multiple deposits, examinations and modification stages, the present system has still not stopped thousands of objections being considered at examination. For example, I am told that there were 20,000 objectors to the unitary development plan in Leeds.

We have set out a clear system for local planning that contains straightforward elements that link in a clear way. Each of those documents to which the noble Lady referred—in a way that nobody would understand—are clearly linked. One leads to another. The amendments would set out an alternative approach. We do not think that that approach would work because it is based on an entirely different system—unitary development plans across Wales and a different role for the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly has decided that it wants to go down a different route to our approach in England. I remind colleagues in this House that that is what devolution is all about.

I believe that we are introducing a system to deal with some of the problems, which I could set out in answering all of these amendments—most if not all of which we dealt with in Committee. The system will be faster and more flexible, and more responsive to plan making in England. It will allow much more effective community involvement than we have today. The idea that because the system is faster means that it is less fair is not true. There will be more involvement and more opportunity for involvement. We are not imposing an English system on Wales and the Welsh system should not be imposed on England—it could not be, because our local government structure is entirely different. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. Otherwise, I shall read them all out for the record.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, the Minister seems to has lost his usual cool. Somewhere along the line I must be striking a note which is causing him irritation. The irritation can only be because I am getting at his new system of development and planning control. The only reason that I am standing here getting at that system is because there are people out there beyond the Doors of this Parliament, who are completely perplexed by what is proposed and totally against it.

We do not dream up these things without having some evidence that people are concerned. There is plenty of evidence that those involved in the planning world are concerned about this plethora of planning documents. The Minister may say that they interweave with each other. However, I can knit and drop a stitch, but I cannot knit a jersey. No matter how many loops there are leading things one into another, somewhere along the line there will be a tumble and the system will not work. The system is complex and difficult. It may not be as difficult and complex as it sounds, but it sounds manic. That is what is generally considered.

As I said in Committee, we know that the UDP system was not absolutely brilliant. It had its flaws, one of which was the time-scale. The Minister told me that 29 area wide plans have not been done and I have no reason to doubt that, but why have the authorities been allowed to get away with that? My local authority would not have been allowed to get away with not producing a UDP and getting it on the stocks in a timely fashion; the elected members would not have allowed that. It says something about the people involved in those areas that that has been allowed to happen. However, the system is simple. The Welsh, whether or not they have a different unitary government, have a simpler system. The UDP system has worked within the rationale of the Government and the local government of the present day, and we believe that it is perfectly possible to translate it back, although the Government are hell-bent on everything being regional.

I said what I said about acronyms slightly tongue in cheek—it is always desperately worrying when one has to explain a joke. However, since the Minister has risen to the bait a little, I hope that the issue has been raised. The Minister is right in saying that he has never used an acronym in discussing this matter, but he is going to be alone. Acronyms will come into being whatever happens, and they will all be received with the usual incomprehension by people reading papers and trying to draw conclusions about what it is all about.

The Government have set up a system to fail, as it has far too many tracks down it. The idea that it will engage the public and give them a real feeling of being involved is probably quite wide of the mark. I know that the Minister does not like all my amendments, and I dread the thought that he may go through them all one by one. What a threat at this time of night!

9.30 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I want to take this matter seriously. I could have gone through the amendments, but I realised that that was not the intention behind them. I realise that the noble Baroness was having some fun at what she thought was my expense. However, I want to make her an offer. Since only the Front Benches are present, why do not my four noble colleagues accept the invitation to come into the ODPM and listen to the civil servants who put the legislation together explain how all the documents fit together? They will do so using modern English, and show how the thing will gel before Third Reading.

If there is confusion, and the Front Benches accept the offer that I have made to take them through it, they will see why the confusion outside is totally unnecessary and unfounded. There is always confusion with a Bill going through Parliament; it has been in this House and the other House a long time and has changed substantially because of all the changes that we have made. I know that I am taking too long—I am only intervening. However, I wanted to make that offer. Noble Lords do not have to accept it now, but I strongly advise them to do so—otherwise, maybe at Third Reading if we return to the matter, I shall have some fun at the expense of the noble Baroness. My offer is meant genuinely, because I take what she says as genuine. It is a question of linking the documents with the new terminology and explaining the matter easily over a cup of tea, in less than an hour. The noble Baroness will come away thinking, "Ah, I have something here after all".

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making the offer of tea—it was coffee last time, was it not? This is precisely why we felt that it was important to table the amendment that my noble friend Lady Maddock moved about the "Rough Guide" to the legislation, as it were. The Minister says that this offer is just between him and the Front Benches—and Hansard and everyone who needs it—but it should not be necessary to have a one-to-one explanation. We would be very pleased to help to find some way in which to get the "Rough Guide" into language that is more intelligible.

Lord Hanningfield

My Lords, I should like to intervene as well. I would welcome the cup of tea, but—

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is correct. It is very kind of the Minister to invite us to tea, and I should like to think about that offer rather than simply turn it down. However, it might be helpful on the basis of looking at a draft of the guide that the noble Baroness has put into her amendment. I believe that we can do something about this matter. It is perfectly possible to go on having a humorous discussion across the Benches, but I believe that matter to be really serious. If there is a draft of the guide or another way of dealing with this, perhaps we should think about it before Third Reading—in case we decide to come back to it with perhaps fewer amendments, and so that I do not run the risk of the Minister spending the whole of Third Reading reading them back to me. I am grateful for his reply. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 48 to 56 not moved.]

Clause 15 [Local development scheme]:

[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]

Clause 16 [Minerals and waste development scheme]:

[Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 not moved.]

Clause 17 [Local development documents]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 63: Page 9, line 27, at end insert— ( ) the local planning authority's core planning strategy which shall include—

1. (i) a statement of the development and use which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any period specified in the strategy;
2. (ii) a statement of the environmental, social and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development and use mentioned in sub-paragraph (i); and
3. (iii) the authority's general policies in respect of the matters in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii);"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment brings us to Clause 17 and deals with matters that should be included in the local planning authority's core planning strategy. Happily, in this part of the Bill acronyms are not used as much they are in the first part. I have felt so acutely conscious of using acronyms, even when quoting bits of the Bill, that I have felt uncomfortable about it. In most cases, I think that the acronyms I quoted were a matter of parliamentary counsel's drafting and not of my speech. As I said, however, we do not have to deal with acronyms here.

We tabled an amendment in Committee which, although much shorter, had the same thrust. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that providing for a strategic planning statement was unnecessary because guidance and regulations would provide. This amendment uses the wording of the draft regulations, but with the substitution of one small word in paragraph (ii). The noble Lord said that making the amendment we had proposed would not add anything and that the, issue can be more and better finessed in the regulations".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; col. 101.] As we have draft regulations which will not be amendable, I thought that this might be the opportunity to understand whether the Government think they have the right approach in the regulations, or whether the words I have used in this amendment need, to use the noble Lords word, to be "finessed". I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I congratulate the noble Baroness on the subtlety of her amendment. However, our view really has not changed since the earlier stage of the Bill. The amendment seeks to outline what the core should include. That would mean that a core strategy with specific contents would be required of all local planning authorities until such time as Parliament agreed otherwise. Our view remains the same. It is neither necessary nor sensible for the core strategy to be on the face of the Bill. We have argued this before, but I shall make the point again. Regulations will require every local planning authority to have a core strategy and will set out what it should include, at Regulation 14(1).

Our view is that primary legislation is too rigid and difficult to change. We certainly do not have many opportunities for planning Bills to make perhaps necessary changes. We think that it is better to set out the broad framework describing local development documents in the legislation and then to leave it to regulations and policy statements to flesh out the detail of what those are and what they contain. We believe that that gives the planning system the robustness and flexibility it requires. It also provides local planning authorities with flexibility in creating local development documents as regulations can be updated in the light of good practice. I know that the noble Baroness is very keen to ensure that local good practice is used, and that is certainly our intent in ensuring that regulations are up to date in their import and impact.

We have already received quite a lot of responses to the draft regulations. The question is raised in the noble Baroness's mind as to whether they are absolutely correct. Does the noble Baroness think that her wording—it uses the formulation currently contained in the regulations—is right? How would she change it to ensure that it kept abreast of developments and the way in which the planning framework is inclined to change over time? That is the difficulty which the noble Baroness creates for us and for herself in her approach to this part of the legislation.

Having heard my reply, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I find it difficult to envisage such a change in circumstances that the words used in the amendment—I filched them from Government—will become out of date. They are not intended to be exclusive. Having moved the amendment, I realised that I had not referred in words to the response to consultation. The Minister has not answered my question. I am happy to answer his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 64: Page 9, line 34, at end insert— ( ) These should include the policies in respect of—

1. (a) the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land;
2. (b) the conservation of natural resources;
3. (c) the improvement of the physical environment;
4. (d) the management of traffic."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 is a partner amendment to Amendment No. 30 which I moved earlier. I move this amendment to ascertain whether the Government have anything further to put on the record with regard to this part of the Bill. The amendment applies to the local development document rather than the regional spatial strategy. It picks up the same part of the 1991 Act which refers to local plans. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I recall Amendment No. 30. I can give almost the same reply. In the context of the local planning authority these are important considerations. No one gainsays that. But they are not the only ones. I made that point earlier. We do not think it right to single out particular policy considerations on the face of the Bill as it would cut across the integrated and holistic approach of the new system.

Local planning authorities must consider those issues—the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land; the conservation of natural resources; the improvement of the physical environment; and certainly the management of traffic—alongside a much wider range of matters as is already set out in planning policy statement 12, together with further policy requirements as set out in Annex A on page 37.

A further safeguard is the requirement for a sound evidence base and the requirements for sustainability assessment and strategic environmental assessment, again as set out in the paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.3. l of planning policy statement 12.

Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies which influence the nature of places and how they develop. Global and national policies may change over time and, therefore, we should not prescribe for these in legislation, as many will emerge as a matter of good practice.

That goes a little further than what I intended to say. In other words, these are very important considerations but they are not the only ones. For that reason, it would be wrong to put them on the face of the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]

Clause 18 [Statement of community involvement]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 67: Page 10, line 20, at end insert "and use of land

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend Clause 18, which deals with the statement of community involvement. It seeks to extend the persons who are the subject or the object—I am not sure which—of the activity under Clause 18(2). That subsection provides that: The statement of community involvement is a statement of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the authority's functions … of persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in their area". My amendment seeks to add the words "and use of land".

The Minister very helpfully sent out a compendium letter, if I may describe it as that, which picked up a number of points made in Committee. One of those concerned the definition of "development" and the definition of "use". He pointed out the differences between those and said that planning permission is required for the carrying out of a development as defined. References in the Bill to development alone refer to development and control matters. References in the Bill to the development and use of land refer not only to development in the development control sense but also to the ongoing use of land where there is not necessarily any change or activity envisaged in respect of it.

I tabled the amendment before receiving the letter. Nevertheless, I was very grateful to receive the letter as it seems to me to spell out exactly what I was concerned about in tabling the amendment—that is, that the statement of community involvement should be wide enough to include those who are interested in the ongoing use of land where there is not necessarily any change or activity envisaged. It must be right to ask whether the Government believe that things are right now. Do they want change or no change? If Clause 18(2) is confined only to those who have an interest in matters relating to development control, that seems to me to be too narrow. I was glad to have the relevant definition. It was helpful to be given that and the distinctions between the terms. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, it would be ridiculous for me to read out my notes bearing in mind that the noble Baroness tabled the amendment before she received the letter, as she said. The letter is quite lengthy.

We want the Bill to be clear that both tiers of plans should include policies for ongoing use as well as development. We do not think that there are any grounds for concern that the wording of the Bill will in any way exclude parties with an interest in conservation or those opposing development for that matter.

As the letter was received after the amendment was tabled, I am happy in the time available between now and Third Reading to do a triple check on the use of the words in this part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am very grateful for that. I do not think that it would involve any loss of face at all on the part of the Government, particularly as they have three-quarters raised the matter, to make it wholly clear on the face of the Bill that the involvement is as extensive as we all believe that it should be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 68: Page 10, line 21, at end insert "including councillors

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment adds the role of local councillors to the matters addressed by statements of community involvement. That might seem odd, as it is the authority's policy on the statement of community involvement which is being put forward. Since the introduction of executive arrangements in councils, decision making is concentrated mainly in the hands of a small number of executive members. Other councillors may well be on the authority's planning committee, but the majority of councillors will have no decision-making powers beyond the small number of matters reserved for full council meetings.

The representational role of those back-bench councillors becomes more important as a result and one of the areas in which the public most expects representation is on planning matters. The role of ward councillors is not always clear at the moment and it certainly needs to be enhanced. The amendment would ensure that the role of councillors in community involvement in planning decisions is set out and, consequently, will improve the representations that they will make. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, this issue was raised in Committee and we set out our firm commitment to community involvement. I have repeated that throughout the process. Today we have published our policy paper on the objectives for community involvement in planning, copies of which have been made available to the Front Benches and placed in the Library of the House. I hope I am not going to be contradicted on that. It is good bedtime reading. It is an important statement of the vision and I hope will be a useful description of many of the things we are doing to promote community involvement—not just in the Bill.

Amendment No. 68 requires local planning authorities to consult councillors. They have a vital role in leading the process of community involvement. That is part of their role as democratically elected representatives They are spokespersons for their areas and their role should be clear. I encourage councillors to take the fullest part in promoting and facilitating the process and the community involvement paper makes that clear. But what is the point of the amendment? The councillors are members of the local authority. They will, in effect, be responsible for their own statements of community involvement. The amendment seems to imply that councillors will be divorced from the process. If that is happening there are real problems in the local authority concerned.

I have never been a councillor, but you need to know the difference between governance and management. The councillor's job is not to manage the authority, but to govern it. The manager's job is not to govern it—that is the councillor's job. The councillors need to know where the dividing line is. There are real problems in authorities if we have reached the position where councillors who own the decisions of the authority do not feel part of it. They will all have different roles, including scrutiny, planning and so on, but they are all members of that authority.

If the amendment is meant to refer to councillors in other authorities—which could be the case—that is covered by the arrangements that the local planning authority must make to consult other local planning authorities on its local development document. So we cannot see a problem for the amendment to tackle. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is aware of any serious problems, I will be grateful if she will let the department have her notes about them.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am dredging my memory—I was going to ask if that meant that the issue would be a key decision that would have to be reported as part of the forward plan. I am thinking of practising councillors; but it cannot be a key decision in this context as it does not lend itself to that. It would be helpful for us to understand, in the context of the mechanisms now in place—with reference to the relevant local government Act—the basis upon which the matter should be referred to all councillors.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, there were several reasons for raising this matter. One was that, on the whole, I believe that councils are becoming more and more divorced from governance. I do not say "management"; I do not really know why the Minister raised the issue of governance and management because that is not germane to the amendment. However, under the last licensing Bill, councillors were excluded from making representations. Members are excluded from making any decisions that have anything to do with any planning anywhere within their wards or areas. That cannot be right because there must be policy areas where they are absolutely enabled to take part.

I believe that the two examples I have quoted make all the more relevant the reason for wanting to see councillors referred to on the face of the Bill as part of the group who are to be consulted formally or included in the discussions. A wider audience would be discussing the statement of community involvement and, by rights, they should have a role in that. That was the purpose of the amendment. I do not believe that it required too much jubilation. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 69: Page 10, line 21, at end insert— (2A) An enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency shall prepare a statement of community involvement with respect to any functions falling within subsection (2) which it has power to exercise.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment requires enterprise zone authorities, urban development corporations, housing action trusts and English Partnerships to prepare statements of community involvement where they exercise development control powers. We touched on this matter in Committee but did not really get anywhere with it. All those bodies can be empowered to determine planning applications.

Local planning authorities will be obliged to prepare statements explaining how they will involve persons interested in development in their area in preparing local development plans and in making development control decisions. While urban development corporations and similar bodies will not be responsible for development plans, they may have powers to grant or refuse planning permission.

Local authorities, which are democratically accountable, are required to produce statements of community involvement. That is on top of their existing statutory responsibilities to consult on and publicise planning applications and to make decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Ministers clearly consider that this additional statement is required.

The Minister's reply—that of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, no less—to this amendment in Committee was unfortunately unconvincing, again. He said that those bodies are subject to the obligation to, determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority unless there were other material considerations". That is true, and so are local authorities. He said that these bodies are subject to, requirements for publicity, the notification of planning applications and enabling representations to be made Ion these bodies]".—[Official Report, 27/1/04; cols. 119–120.] That is true, and so are local authorities. The Minister said that those bodies must involve the community in decision-making. That is also true, and so must local authorities.

The Government have just produced a document, Community Involvement in Planning: the Government's Objectives. Its front page says: Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right that people should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process. Strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government's planning reforms". But nowhere in its 24 pages does the document mention enterprise zone authorities, urban development corporations, housing action trusts or English Partnerships. Community involvement is not only about local authorities and planning; it must be about these other bodies and planning decisions. We do not see how a statutory statement, subject to independent examination, is required for local councils but is not necessary for other bodies exercising the same powers.

In Committee, the Minister made a complaint that the amendment did not work technically. Those advising our side on these matters do not agree. Clause 18 will apply the obligations of independent examination and powers of withdrawal and adoption to these other bodies' statements of community involvement. Contrary to the suggestion in Committee, an urban development corporation's statement of community involvement will not be a local development document, as under Clause 17 that is only the local planning authority statement of community involvement. A tidying-up amendment may be needed to the interpretation section, Clause 37, to extend the definition of "local planning authority" for the purposes of independent examination, withdrawal and adoption, that is, Clauses 20, 22 and 23, to these bodies. That could be tabled for Third Reading. If Ministers have other consequential technical amendments, they can bring them forward later.

The Government envisage that we shall see a revived role for urban development corporations and English Partnership in planning major growth areas in this country. Those schemes will require effective public involvement to attain credibility. The need for statements of community involvement apply with as much, if not greater, force to those bodies as to local councils. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, the normal procedures relating to development control will apply to the urban development corporations and to English Partnerships, the statutory bodies. So in terms of development control, that is planning applications for a particular site or development, the normal procedures of consultation apply.

I have always made it absolutely clear that in setting up delivery vehicles for the growth areas and for some of the housing renewal pathfinder areas—at the moment there are no delivery vehicles of a statutory nature, but there may be—it is not our intention to shortcut the consultation process. It is a different kind of management tool. They have a defined life. From memory, I think that we said 10 years for the two that we are consulting about in Milton Keynes and south Midlands at the present time. There are two in London so far but there will not be very many. They are a tool for getting action, but not for snuffing out people's opportunity to put their objections in and to have their five penn'orth. So far as development controls are concerned, the normal procedures would apply. I am more than happy to revisit this issue for Third Reading.

It is important and completely different from what we have discussed in the rest of the day. Coming to it at this late hour I do not intend to delay the House but there are just a few points I shall put on the record.

We discussed this issue in Committee. I described in some detail the consultations that urban development corporations and others would need to undertake, which mean that it is unnecessary to apply the statement of community involvement processes to them. I was faced with an acronym and I refused to use it. It was not spelled out for me.

The amendment would require the enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency to prepare the statement of community involvement where it has the power to exercise any function. These functions are preparing the local development documents. The bodies in question can be given powers to determine planning applications. They have to determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority, unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. So the framework within which the delivery vehicle operates would have been subject to the involvement processes that we have already discussed.

The statement of community involvement is an integral part of the process for preparing the local development documents and we think that it would be problematic to import it wholesale into the structures and ways of working of other bodies. The delivery vehicles are not all the same; they are fit for purpose for the area. In the Milton Keynes and south Midlands area one is an ordinary, standard urban development corporation—that is the west Northampton one. The one for Milton Keynes is an English Partnerships-led statutory authority. It is slightly different. It is not English Partnerships but they are using different powers of the law that already apply. We think it would be problematic to import this into different structures and ways of working. But they are still required to go through the consultation process.

The nature of the beast, the body, when we put these agencies together is to ensure that the local authorities are represented; that they are not being snuffed out; that there will be places on the board and independent involvement. When the chair and chief executive are appointed, it would be wise indeed to ensure that they take the body of public opinion along with them as they perform their role as part of the big picture for the growth area, which it is a Minister's duty to put forward and explain.

We would expect the local development documents to take due account of the urban development corporation's proposals for an area and would expect close consultation between the local planning authority and the urban development corporation. The statement of community involvement processes will apply.

I have one final point: as a generalisation, the urban development corporations which are being set up are borrowing planning powers where the planning powers are coming over to them, only for the strategic sites in a locality. They are not taking all the planning powers of all the local authority area. It will apply only to the strategic development sites. Until planning permission is given—there may be developments under way—the planning would then revert back because it is a borrowing of the powers.

Unlike former UDCs, or many of them, which have taken wholesale all the planning powers including modification to domestic dwellings, this will be for the strategic development sites for generating growth. This is a slightly different animal. I am happy to give this matter more thought so that on Third Reading we can give further clarification if necessary. It may be that we can put together a letter at an early stage between now and then to explain in greater detail why—there will be good reason—for example, they are not referred to in the document we have published today.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, as always I am grateful to the Minister. I am always grateful, too, for sight of the documents. I am still waiting for the last one which we discussed a couple of weeks ago and for which I adjourned the House. Fortunately, I obtained a copy from the Library; it never turned up from the Minister's office. No doubt I shall still be waiting for this document also. Never mind. It is only a last point.

I thank the Minister for taking this matter seriously. It seems to me that where there is a plethora or diversity of organisations that are dealing with strategic and urban development and which have planning powers, it is not impossible to ensure that there is a statement of community involvement. In many cases they work on a very wide front, dealing with employment, housing, and infrastructure. There are large areas involved and there would be merit in them being able to say that they have a statement of community involvement which has been tested, even if it is a fast-track testing. I always believe there is merit in my amendments. I leave that with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Preparation of local development documents]:

[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Clause 20 [Independent examination]:

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.