HL Deb 20 January 2004 vol 657 cc994-1018

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 9: Page 1, line 8, at end insert— () The RSS will set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region.

The noble Lord said: This amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies set the spatial frameworks for the economic strategies of the regional development agencies. The Bill is silent on how all the various regional strategies will relate to each other. Not only would this be a recipe for confusion, it could result in the strategies working against each other.

We do not support these moves towards regional spatial strategies away from county structure plans, but we recognise that it is important that the different regional strategies are integrated and co-ordinated and that provision is made for this in the Bill. If it is left to guidance, the mechanism by which we can deliver joined-up policies at the regional level will remain unclear and will not be subject to a proper debate in Parliament.

The drawing up of planning responsibilities from counties to regional planning bodies in the Bill reinforces the importance of having one overarching spatial framework at the regional level. The negative consequences of this fragmentation can at least be partly offset by a clear hierarchy, in which a regional development agency's objective of maximising economic performances does not unnecessarily conflict with a regional planning body's statutory duty to provide sustainable development.

It is not a question of the RPBs controlling the RDAs; it is simply a question of recognising the potential for conflict between the two and ensuring that regional planning becomes a genuinely spatial framework. If the regional spatial strategy does not set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region, it will be neither regional nor strategic. If the Minister does not support the amendment, can he explain exactly how the Government will prevent the achievement of important cost-cutting objectives such as reducing the need to travel being undermined by conflicting strategies that have equal status?

There is one final issue to which I draw attention in support of the amendment—that of democratic accountability, which we have raised several times today. The Bill does not offer much comfort to those who believe in local democracy and it is deficient in the provisions it makes for community participation, as we mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, regional planning bodies will probably offer more scope for democratic input than regional development agencies. As such, it is better if the regional spatial strategy is in some sense a pre-eminent strategy for the region, as this will go some way towards helping to strengthen the democratic dimension at the regional level of decision-making. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Maddock

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 which are grouped with Amendment No. 9. Their purpose is similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in Amendment No. 9. We seek to ensure that regional spatial strategies set a spatial framework for all other regional strategies, particularly—the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to this point—the regional economic strategy. We believe that it also needs to be consistent with the regional sustainable development framework. We believe that, if regional spatial strategies replace all the regional planning guidance, we should ensure that we have an overarching regional spatial strategy that cuts across all other regional guidance.

One reason for exploring that at this stage is that there is a danger that the opportunity will be missed to get this part of the Bill right. I gather that in Committee in another place the Government indicated that the guidance will set out a two-way relationship between the regional planning body and the regional development agency. I shall quote from Tony McNulty, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. When discussing this matter in Committee he indicated that the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy should "reflect each other", which to us sounds a little ambiguous. The draft New Planning Policy Statement 11—Regional Planning published for consultation in October 2003 states: it is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies". Again, that could lead to some ambiguity and muddle. Experience has shown that despite the requirement for regional development agencies to further sustainable development in their operations, some in practice have actively tried to undermine the sustainable land use and transport objectives. There are several examples of that. I shall refer to a couple of them: first, a regional development agency in the north-east—where I live—was very resistant to higher brownfield housing targets in regional planning guidance, which other people thought would make better use of existing urban potential. Secondly, there was a problem in Birmingham—which the Minister may know about—where an enthusiastic regional development agency supported a western orbital road in the face of widespread criticism, which included an independent panel that had examined the draft of the regional planning guidance.

If the Bill goes forward as set out, we need to try to sort out this point. It is important that the regional spatial strategy is a truly spatial framework. By definition it should integrate all the regional level planning strategies; and it should set the framework from within which other strategies operate, using their own expertise and resources to implement the spatial planning framework. I hope the Minister will recognise that from the discussion so far it is far from clear that we have the matter right in the Bill. I look forward to his comments.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I ask the Minister to say something about transport in the development of regional spatial strategies, particularly with regard to the plans developed by the delivery arms of transport, particularly the Strategic Rail Authority and the Highways Agency. Clearly, there is little point in regional strategies being drawn up that are simply wish lists of schemes that may well never take place. On the other hand, at the moment it is also clear that the kind of criteria that the Strategic Rail Authority or the Highways Agency use to develop their future schemes are rather different from those of the people drawing up the plans. I am quite keen to hear about how we can ensure that there is not some sort of mismatch between all those plan-making bodies.

Lord Marlesford

This is an important amendment, because it relates to time-scale. Economic and other developments, such as transport, come and go and are crucially important for those who are around today. However, we must consider how the country will be in the time of our children and grandchildren. If we do not get the long-term pattern right, we could do irreversible damage.

I shall give what is perhaps a silly example, but one that helps to make the point. In a sense, setting up national parks was producing for those areas a regional spatial strategy—I do not myself like that particular bit of jargon, buv no one has thought of anything better. That means that there are many other possible uses for national parks, which are not taken into account. I hope that no one would think of putting a new town in a national park, because that is not what national parks are about.

The issue is the time-scale. If we get the spatial strategy right, we can have the economic and development policies that are appropriate to the time but do not pre-empt the long-term objective of keeping the country in the form in which we would wish to hand it on to our descendants.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Lord. Lord Marlesford, is right in saying that this is an important short debate. I am impressed and interested that all Members of the Committee who have spoken are concerned to ensure that the regional spatial strategy should fit, work, interact and interrelate with other strategies in the region. Their amendments give voice to that concern.

Amendment No. 9 would include a requirement that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework for the economic strategy of the regional development agencies in each region. Amendment No. 11 would extend the requirement for the RSS to set the spatial framework to all regional level strategies in the region. As the regional economic strategy is simply one of a number of regional strategies, albeit a particularly important one, and for the reasons that have emerged in the few minutes in which the group has been discussed, it is important to take the amendments together.

Taken at face value, we would all want to support the principle expressed in the amendments, although not the inclusion of such statements of detail in the Bill. It is absolutely right that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework of other regional strategies in the region, although that must happen as part of a two-way process. That was what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, was suggesting. The regional spatial strategy needs to be shaped by other regional strategies as well as shaping them.

Baroness Maddock

I wonder if I could clarify something. It was not me who suggested that; it was suggested by the Minister in another place. I am querying how practical it is, whether it is not a little ambiguous, and how we can ensure that it does what we want.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I take the point that the noble Baroness makes; I gathered that that was what she was after.

I suspect, however, that the intention of the amendments is to make the regional spatial strategy pre-eminent among regional strategies. I believe that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was after, and it is certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield was after. The Government do not believe that a hierarchical relationship with the RSS at the top would necessarily be appropriate.

We would argue that each serves a different role and different function. What is essential is that those bodies responsible for drawing up the regional spatial strategy, whether economic or housing, work together to develop a shared understanding of the issues, objectives and opportunities. We emphasise that in draft Planning Policy Statement 11 on regional planning (PPS11). Even if securing pre-eminence for the regional spatial strategy among regional strategies is not the intention—it is clear that it is—the very fact that it could be construed as such means, we believe, that the amendments are flawed. Amendment No. 12 would amend Clause 1 to require the RSS to have regard to and be consistent with the regional sustainable development framework for the region.

The problem is simple. We cannot set this out in legislation as the regional sustainable development framework has no statutory basis itself. It is flawed in that simple way. Broadly speaking, we are supportive of the principle that the RSS and the RSDF—although I hate the jargon it is necessary—should be complementary and work together and, more than that, mutually support one another. PPS11 makes clear that the RSDF is an essential part of the background against which regional strategies are prepared.

We cannot support the hierarchical notion. We recognise the importance and centrality of the regional spatial strategy. But it is important that these things work together. While we understand and support the principle of that, we do not think that the amendment is necessarily the right way to achieve it. We believe that we have the provision already in PPS11.

This short discussion is valuable. I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about the importance of democratic input. Given the fullness of time and the development of elected regional assemblies, we shall have that elected, democratic, over-arching body which we all support—although not the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.

Baroness Hamwee

I am sorry to question the Utopian vision with which the Minister presents us, with every strategy being supportive of and consistent with each other. I wish I were quite so optimistic. I take the noble Lord's point that if there were elected regional government it would be easier to co-ordinate.

Can the Minister explain to the Committee the basis of the other strategies referred to? Do the Government's guidance or papers have the same weight as regards the new planning policy statement for the regional spatial strategy? I realise that it is difficult to pursue the point without understanding the genesis of those other strategies. Are they created in the same way? Do they go through the same consultation procedures?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness's question is not clearer.

Baroness Hamwee

The PPS11 to which the Minister referred states that the RSS should be consistent with and supportive of other regional frameworks and strategies including the RSDF and the regional, cultural, economic and housing strategies. How do those come about? Do they go through similar processes to the regional spatial strategy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I think that I can answer the noble Baroness. The regional spatial strategy takes forward the regional housing strategy. The regional transport strategy is part and parcel of the regional spatial strategy. If there is an inconsistency between draft revisions to a regional spatial strategy and a regional economic strategy, when they are examined and made public documents there would be an opportunity as part of a consultation process to ensure that any inconsistencies at that point are ironed out. The documents are published; they are there for consultation. In a sense, the other regional strategies get pulled into the spatial strategy and that is the overriding driver for it.

9 p.m.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

Is the Minister confident that if a group of people or a society has a real problem with a decision that comes about and chooses to seek a judicial review, the processes that he has outlined, with all their fuzziness, would stand up to a judicial review challenge which would seek to demonstrate that a decision had not been made with due processes? It is very hard to pick out what those due processes might be.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I think that the process would be robust, because it would be informed and the strategies would be the product of a form of consultation which would enable people, organisations, local authorities, agencies and others to offer their views as part of the process. They would play a part in the creation of those strategies in the document. The answer has to be, "Yes, we think that the processes are robust in themselves".

Lord Hanningfield

As the mover of the original amendment on this, I do not think that the Minister's replies have been that helpful. We feel—not just those of us in the Committee but also professionals and people who have been involved in creating all these strategies—that there could be a lot of confusion and that a definite system should be laid out so that everyone knows where they are. RDAs have considerable amounts of money which the planning side might not necessarily have. There could be undue influence because of the amount of money that RDAs have. There could be more influence from the RDAs over the regional spatial strategies than there should be. We are going to have to come back to this issue.

We have noted what the Minister said, but—going back to an earlier subject of laughter—in some of these matters we are trying to help. If something is going to happen, it must work. I moved this amendment on the advice of professional people. Therefore, we should look at it again. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am very pleased that the noble Lord has come back to this point in a very constructive way. I think that he is trying to be helpful here. I have outlined how we see the system working reasonably fairly and accurately, but we shall have a very close look at what has been said and endeavour to reflect on the important points that have been made.

Lord Hanningfield

I thank the Minister for that comment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 1, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 aims to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make existing regional planning guidance, or parts of it, part of the regional spatial strategy, and so part of the development plan, without going through the procedures outlined in Part 1 of the Bill. The removal of subsection (6) is consequential.

This is a complicated amendment, but we feel it is very important. To elaborate further, Clause 1(5) strikes me as a strange and unwelcome piece of drafting. While the rest of Part 1 of the Bill establishes regional spatial strategies—what they are, how they will be revised and so on—subsection (5) undermines all of that by empowering the Secretary of State to decide which bits of regional planning guidance he wants to be in the regional spatial strategy for a region. Can the Minister explain why the Bill establishes the procedures for regional planning bodies to follow in order to produce regional spatial strategies—only for it to render those redundant by giving the Secretary of State the power to dictate what will constitute a regional spatial strategy—without going through any of the processes thought necessary for the construction of the spatial strategy as set out in Part 1?

I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The Bill contains the procedure for tile preparation of revisions of the regional spatial strategy. Clauses 5 to 11 assume that there is a regional spatial strategy and that the responsibility of a regional planning body is to prepare a draft revision.

There are two reasons why a procedure for adopting a regional spatial strategy is necessary; one is practical, the other is principled. The practical reason is that the Bill does not put in place a regional spatial strategy by some other means. Under Clause 1(1) there is to be a regional spatial strategy. But there is merely a power to make regional planning guidance the regional spatial strategy for a region in Clause 1(5). Even if that power remains, it will not be necessary to exercise it. Furthermore, the existing regional planning guidance might be inappropriate as a regional spatial strategy.

I hope that I have made myself clear on all that, but it is very complicated. I just about understand it myself. I do not know whether I have been able to explain it to everyone else.

A regional spatial strategy is, after all, different; the Government intended it to be part of a development plan; they intend more weight to be attached to it; and they intend local development plan documents to be in general conformity with it. Draft Planning Policy Statement 11, on regional planning, says that these documents are intended to be more specific. So there needs to be a procedure to create a regional spatial strategy from scratch. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

Our Amendment No. 23 is in this group—which at least takes us on to page 2 of the Bill. Clause 3(1) provides that the regional planning body must keep the regional spatial strategy under review. We suggest that rather than it being required to do so, it shall have regard to the need to". That is perhaps a little tongue in cheek. The philosophical and political point is the autonomy and discretion of the regional planning body. The tongue in cheek bit is that they might think that the regional spatial strategy which they have inherited from the Secretary of State is so perfect that they do not need to revise it.

Lord Cobbold

Amendment No. 24, in my name, is also in this group. As it raises an issue that has already been much discussed today, I shall be brief.

The idea is that the new regional planning bodies will have no influence on the initial RSS but only on its subsequent revision. The initial RSS is defined in Clause 1(5) as, so much of the regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes". The initial RSS is thus 100 per cent top down. While accepting that that deals with the problem of a possible vacuum in the transitional period, I think that the new regional planning bodies should have some input on the initial RSS and that the Bill should reflect that, if only the right to comment and to seek early review.

As I said, this matter has already been much discussed. I do not expect the Minister to change the views that have already been expressed on this issue.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made it clear that the amendments are really about making regional planning bodies start from scratch—I think that that is what he is after—in preparing a regional spatial strategy under the new arrangements, rather than allowing them to build on existing regional planning guidance.

Amendment No. 13 would delete from Clause 1 those subsections that provide for the Secretary of State to convert such guidance as he prescribes into regional spatial strategies. We do not see why the noble Lord would want to delete what seems to us such a commonsense provision. It is our intention that all current regional planning guidance, perhaps with a few exceptions, will be converted into an RSS in regulations. Those exceptions—which are worth recording—will be RPGs 3 (London), 3a (Strategic Views in London), 3b and 9b (River Thames) and 9a (Thames Gateway).

These documents will be replaced in large part by the Mayor's London Plan and were not subject to public examination when they were prepared. In other words, each region will have a regional plan from the outset. We accept that those regional plans will not be perfect—we expect them to be revised over the next few years and turned into more genuinely spatial strategies—but nor should they be tossed aside. They express important regional policies that have been built up over the years and reflect the input of people across the region.

The consequence of not converting RPG in each region to RSS would be serious. It would leave a gap, certainly in the transition period and perhaps beyond that, prior to the preparation of a new RSS—a process that would take at least two years—in which there was no strategic regional level development plan document. We do not believe that it is sensible or practical in terms of regional planning for there to be no strategic regional level development plan document. This would make the preparation of new local plans almost impossible. It would create uncertainty for communities, developers and business. We do not believe that is desirable particularly in terms of economic regeneration.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Amendment No. 47 would insert a new clause after Clause 4 to require the RPB to prepare a draft RSS if no RSS had been prescribed for the region or part of the region and apply Clauses 5 to 11 to the preparation of a draft RSS in the same way that they apply to the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS. I hope that the noble Lord followed that.

Amendment No. 48 would insert a new clause after Clause 4 to require the RPB to prepare the draft RSS and apply Clauses 5 to 11 to the preparation of a draft RSS in the same way that they apply to the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS.

Let me deal with these two amendments together as they are very similar. If the Committee accepts that Amendment No. 13 will be damaging, these amendments become unnecessary. As I have said, we can envisage no situation where it would be helpful for there to be no RSS for the region and the RPB to start from a completely blank sheet of paper. A revision of an RSS can and often should represent the opportunity for a radical reworking of the existing document. It is certainly not about tinkering at the edges. The Bill already provides for the RPB to do exactly that. The current wording does not need to be changed.

Amendment No. 23 would amend Clause 3 to require the regional planning body (RPB) to have regard to the need to keep under review the regional spatial strategy rather than simply stating that it must keep the RSS under review. We do not think that that amendment is helpful. Keeping the RSS under review is a central function of the RPB. The current wording of the Bill is clear and succinct in that regard.

Amendment No. 24 would amend Clause 3 to require the RPB to prepare the RSS as well as keep it under review. This amendment does not seem to us to be necessary. Clause 5(1) already provides that the RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS when it thinks it is necessary to do so, at such time as is prescribed or if directed by the Secretary of State. If the purpose of the amendment is to enable the RPB to prepare an RSS from scratch, I believe that we have already covered why that provision is not required.

For all those reasons we do not think that these amendments are helpful although we understand and appreciate the spirit in which they were tabled. With those comments I hope that noble Lords will not feel the need to press the amendments.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

Before the Minister sits down, I wish to say that such issues take us back to a discussion that we had earlier. I am afraid that it is boringly repetitive. The Bill does not say anywhere, nor does the guidance in PPS 11, that the regional planning body is responsible for the preparation of the regional spatial strategy. But that is what it amounts to: the regional planning guidance will be the prescribed part of any regional planning guidance to form the basis of the regional spatial strategy; but the regional planning body will then be responsible for ensuring that the regional spatial strategy is issued, implemented and reviewed.

Half of the mischief is that the Bill does not say that. It does not mention the regional planning body in terms of the initial regional spatial strategy, nor does it in planning PPS 11. We will need to insert that in Clause 1 or 2, because that is its role. It may be, as part of that, that the regional planning body will then "take account of" or "have regard to" the regional planning guidance as laid down by the Secretary of State. As I said earlier, there is a lacuna here that the Minister may wish to address now. If not, or if there has not been a satisfactory answer, we will have to move an amendment at the next stage to try to insert that provision.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I have listened to the noble Baroness, but I thought that Clause 5 made clear that the regional planning body did have particular responsibilities. Clause 5(1) does say: The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS". The point is that the regional planning body inherits a body of knowledge, of experience, from what is there already. So, in a sense, we are talking about a strategy for dealing with revisions; that is what is required. It is not as though we are starting from scratch. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, wants us to start from scratch, but we do not. We do not start this with a blank sheet of paper—we already have certain matters in place. Those strategies are there. In the real world we are talking about a strategy for revising and keeping that process going. I said earlier that we foresee potential for radical revisions of the current approach and strategy. Yes, there is something in place; yes, changes are expected; but we are talking here about having a process of revision, even though those revisions may be fundamental. That is our approach, it is quite plain in the Bill and I think that I have made it plain in this debate.

Baroness Hanham

I am sorry that the matter has become tedious. The provisional regional spatial strategy is an initial document that arises out of subsections (1) and (2), but it does not say anywhere who is responsible for it other than to state that what the Secretary of State provides in the regional planning guidance is a mandatory part of the spatial strategy.

Clause 5 deals with revision of the RSS. The regional spatial strategy covers 15 to 20 years. It is proper for it to be revised. It cannot possibly stand as a document for 20 years without revision. That is what I understand Clause 5 to be about; but we have not yet reached it. I am complaining about the initial regional spatial strategy which is, apparently, to be dealt with by the regional planning body, but nowhere in the Bill does it say that that is the situation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I think that it is self-evident, it is axiomatic, that the regional planning body undertakes that process. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not clear on that. If we need to do more to add clarification then we will be happy to clarify that in correspondence and share that with other noble Lords who have taken part in such an entertaining debate.

Lord Hanningfield

I thank the Minister for such an entertaining and short debate. His comments have clarified the Government's position. We are simply turning all the regional planning guidance that we have now into regional planning strategies. That is contrary to most of our discussions about consultations that involve people. For the time being we shall have to accept regional planning guidance as regional planning strategies. That point has therefore been clarified. In response to my amendment, we would have liked the new regional planning bodies to sit down, look at the problems of their region and devise their own strategies. But that clearly is not what the Government inend—

Lord Bassam of Brighton

It is important that the noble Lord understands that that is exactly what they will do. However, they cannot start front scratch because the world goes on. I made it plain that we cannot have a situation in which there is a gap of a year or two when nothing much happens because, self evidently, no strategic plan is in place.

If the noble Lord really wants the East Anglian economy to grind to a halt—it would not do so—because of the absence of a powerful economic strategy for the region, he can wish that on the greater region which is the county of Essex.

Baroness Hamwee

I wonder whether I can enter into the debate. I think I understand the sequence the Government are proposing, but it requires a regional planning body to be in place immediately in order to start thinking about revisions. Clause 2 provides that the Secretary of State may give a direction recognising an RPB. Can the Minister fill in any gaps about timetabling around that? Assuming that ultimately the amendment carried today does not remain in the same form—and who knows?—what timetable do the Government have in mind for creating the RPBs so that they can inherit an RPG, get on with it and turn it into their own RSS?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Rooker that since last April the regional chamber has been performing that responsibility. Therefore, a structure is already in place.

Lord Hanningfield

We have had a considerable debate and we must return to these issues. The Minister has clarified the Government's position and we know how the proposals will work. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Regional planning bodies]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15: Page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to "region" in line 4 and insert "The elected assembly shall be the regional planning body for the Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (6).

The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

Amendment No. 15 having been agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 16 to 22. I should perhaps have mentioned that matter before, but I am sure your Lordships were aware of it.

[Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 not moved.]

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [RPB: general functions]:

[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 25: Page 2, line 20, leave out "may be expected to

The noble Lord said: We have moved on faster than we thought and we must therefore collect our thoughts as we move to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. With this technical amendment, we return to the discussions that we have just had. We consider it right for the regional planning body to keep under review the regional spatial strategy. Surely, a given function of the planning system, and for those who oversee it, is to monitor existing policies to ensure that they continue to deliver the most effective planning framework for their area.

However, I am very concerned that the rest of the clause seeks to prescribe to the regional planning body in a great deal of detail—earlier today the Ministers said that they did not want too much data—exactly how and when reports to the Secretary of State should be made. I will come on to that matter later.

In Clause 2(3), the regional planning body is charged with keeping under review matters which may be expected to affect development in its area. Those are the words used, but it is not clear to me what is meant by the phrase, which may be expected to affect".

What is the difference between saying that and saying simply "matters which affect"? To my mind, either something is relevant to the development of an area, in which case it should be kept under review, or it is not, in which case it need not be kept under review. I do not see what is to be gained by muddying the waters in this way.

The language used here is imprecise and too general and it should be removed from the Bill. Regional planning bodies must have a duty to keep abreast of current issues—as we discussed just now—which might have an impact on development in their area. In doing that, they will be taking a flawed view. The current wording in the Bill does nothing to clarify that.

Amendment No. 26 is also a technical amendment. Put simply, we believe that reference in the Bill to the planning of development draws an unnecessary and unhelpful distinction with "development" plain and simple.

The sentiments of the entire Bill are that a new planning system should have the ability to be proactive and more flexible in its approach to development. It is obvious that, in keeping under review matters affecting development in the region, that must include the planning of development. Indeed, it is hard to see what else it could mean or what else a planning authority would be doing in keeping a spatial strategy under review. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

As the noble Lord has also spoken to Amendment No. 26, I should remind the Committee that, if that amendment is agreed to, it will be impossible to call Amendment No. 28.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Greaves

I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which are grouped with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. They do not concern the same matter but they relate to the same part of the Bill. That is presumably why they have been grouped in this manner.

The reason for tabling the amendments is, again, to attempt to point a dagger at one of the essential issues at the heart of the Bill—that is, whether its purpose is to enhance and assist development per se or whether it is to improve and enhance the planning system in all its aspects. Clause 3 has the heading "RPB: general functions". Subsection (2) states: The RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect—

  1. (a)development in its region or any part of the region;
  2. (b)the planning of that development".
It does not say anything else. It does not say anything about the use of land in general; it does not say anything about improving the quality of the environment; it does not say anything about planning not to develop part of it but preserving it or enhancing its existing uses, which under planning law would not amount to development; and it does not talk about maintenance and management of the physical environment of the region. It simply talks about development.

There is a presumption here of change, of movement and of applications to do things and change uses. There is a presumption that that is what the Bill is all about but it seems to me that that is flawed. Good planning is, indeed, about the encouragement and management of good development. But it is also about resisting development where that is the sensible thing to do. It is about enhancing the environment and about enhancing the other matters that have been referred to in the context of sustainable development.

Therefore, at line 23 I would like to leave out subsection (2)(b). Subsection (2)(a) refers specifically to development in its region or any part of the region". My Amendment No. 27 would replace paragraph (b) with, the planning and management of that development and other use of land and of the quality of the environment". I am looking for a balanced approach, not a static approach that says there must be no change and no development. I am building on what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said earlier this evening about the importance of planning in, for example, preserving and enhancing the countryside. Often that does not involve development, but it is an important part of planning. There are of course many others.

At the end of line 23, which refers to the planning of that development, my Amendment No. 28 would insert, and other use of land". The planning system is not about development alone, but the use of land overall. Some of that is changing uses and developing land, some of it is resisting change and development.

Amendment No. 29 would add a further paragraph to subsection (2), so that the RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect not just development and the planning of the development, but also, the quality of the environment in its region or any part of its region". That is a test of how genuinely the Government are looking to the new planning system not just to develop change or to promote development in the interests of faster economic growth, but to create a balanced approach that also considers the quality of the country in which we are living and all aspects of its environment.

In researching Clause 3 I searched in the Bill for a definition of development. Like many other definitions in the Bill, it is the same as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. What is the meaning of development in the Bill? Am I right in believing that it is defined in Section 55 of the 1990 Act? If I am not right, will the noble Lord tell the Committee where it is defined and on which definition we are working?

Section 55 reads: Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, "development," means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land". I believe that all of us who have ever been involved in the planning system in any way at any level are used to that definition of development and I am happy with it. But if this is the meaning of development in Clause 3, it means that it is just one part of the planning system when surely the regional planning board should be keeping under review the entire purpose of the planning system, which is maintenance of the physical environment in which we live and not just managing the change in that environment for economic progress.

Baroness Hamwee

It occurred to me to build on what my noble friend has just said. Clause 38 requires, among other things, any person or body exercising the function under Part 1 to do so, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development". It could not do so and therefore have any meaning without some addition such as that proposed by my noble friend, because of the rather constricted nature of the description of its duties under Clause 3(2). I very warmly support, as I would have done anyway, the amendment spoken to by my noble friend. However, linking those two together adds to the need to be clearer in this early part of the Bill.

Lord Rooker

I think I have the answers; I hope that I have. The amendments all look to find a better form of words than we have so far discovered, with the help of the parliamentary draftsman, to express the regional planning board's review function in relation to what is happening in its region. In answer to a question on the previous debate, as far as the regional planning board is concerned, we intend to issue directions recognising bodies as regional planning boards very shortly after the commencement of the legislation. In other words, there will be no gap. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.

We do not think that we are fundamentally at odds with what we think the regional planning board should be doing in that regard; that is, its functions in relation to what is happening in its region. The regional spatial strategy sets out the spatial strategy for the region over a 15 to 20-year period. It is essential that the regional planning board reviews whether development is being planned and undertaken in accordance with that strategy having due regard to the economic, social and environmental considerations and the need to integrate land use and other policies. I shall explain briefly why I think the amendments do not improve what is currently set out in the Bill.

Amendment No. 25 would amend Clause 3(2) to require the regional planning board to keep under review those matters that affect the development of its region or the planning of that development, rather than requiring it to keep under review matters which may he expected to affect these things.

We are expecting the regional planning body to look forward as well as reviewing what is happening now. It will not always be possible to determine precisely what may affect development in its region—change in national policy, demographic changes, and so forth—but we would expect the regional planning board to he proactive about considering these, not restricted to considering only matters that it could be sure would affect development. That would be the effect of the amendment, so it would be somewhat restrictive.

Amendment No. 26 would remove from Clause 3(2) the requirement for the regional planning body to keep under review those matters that it expected to affect the planning of development. It is rather strange that a regional planning body should not be expected to keep under review such matters. It is absolutely the regional planning board's role to take a step back and review not just development in the region but how that development has been planned for. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill places a requirement for local development documents to be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy and for local planning authorities to request the regional planning board's opinion on this issue. Central to the regional planning board's function is ensuring that at a local level the planning of development is taking place in line with the strategic regional framework.

In that respect, Clause 3(2) refers to development. That includes the use of land in planning legislation and it is unnecessary to state that specifically; that is, under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The planning of development, including the use of land, covers both conservation and change. I assume that there are accepted definitions of what we are referring to in the Bill, which have been tried and tested in the courts in the past. So, from our point of view we are in no doubt about what "development" means.

Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 overlap but collectively they would amend Clause 3(2). I keep referring to "regional planning board" and "regional planning body". So far as I am concerned it should be "regional planning body", otherwise people will think that there is another body. I am reluctant to use initials. It sounds appalling if anybody ever tunes in. What I said at Question Time was bad enough today but to use initials is terrible.

I shall start again. Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 overlap but collectively they would amend Clause 3(2) to require the regional planning body to keep under review not simply those matters that it expected to affect the planning of development but also the management of that development, the other use of land and the quality of the environment.

These amendments appear to swing a little too far the other way. It is properly the regional planning body's job to review what development is taking place and how that is being planned for. However, "management of that development" implies oversight that relates to operational rather than strategic matters. That is what management means: executive action; looking at things; making things happen on the ground. This is not the regional planning board's role. In case there is any misunderstanding, that is the situation. Creating the regional spatial strategies that look beyond narrow development considerations is at the heart of what we want to achieve.

Land use should not just be considered in terms of development, but also in terms of what is happening on the land—what sort of environment is being created in that space—and in terms of preservation of the natural environment. The consultation draft of Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states, ng authorities should continue to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes and wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources. Sustainability is at the heart of the policies of my department. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill places a requirement on those making and implementing plans to do so with a view to contributing to the achievements of sustainable development. I daresay we shall have an over-long debate when we reach Clause 38.

We can agree with much of the intention of this amendment, but it is simply not necessary. Spatial and environmental considerations are already embedded in the regional planning body's survey role. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation on the definition of development to satisfy noble Lords that the amendments are unnecessary. As I said, we agree with the intention of them and I have every confidence that the issues will be covered in reality.

Lord Marlesford

I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is saying. The Minister quoted those splendid words from, I think, Planning Policy Statement 7. Those are the sort of words I would like to see in the Bill. Is there any way in which that can be contrived?

Lord Rooker

You cannot have everything in a Bill. We have a consultation draft out at the moment. It has been out for some time. I am not sure when consultation finishes. I remember I was part and parcel of the initial development and drafting of this when I was responsible for planning. The Government, through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, through the publication of Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is saying those wonderful words. They are a statement of government policy. Planning authorities will be expected to make a reality of those words. Just because they are not in this Bill but in a planning policy statement on sustainable development in rural areas does not devalue them.

We expect that planning decisions made in rural areas will fit that definition of requirement to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character. That is very difficult to define but we know what we mean by it. I know what I mean by the intrinsic character of the beauty and diversity of the landscape and the wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources. We do not need to put that in this Bill. It is already written in a government document that will have to be followed as Planning Policy Statement 7 when it becomes a final document. I do not expect those words to change.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Marlesford

The difference between a Bill and a planning policy statement is that a Bill is much more permanent. I am not saying that we should have all or exactly those words. Planning policy guidance—as it was—can, has been and needs to be changed. When one gets the rather general but very important intentions referred to in the new wording in PPS7, it would be nice to feel that that could be enshrined in primary legislation because, as we all know, other things are easier to change. Although I would have confidence that this Government would implement it, the Bill may well last longer than that.

Lord Rooker

All I can say to that is this is one quote that was offered in my speaking notes. I know and remember from the early drafts of the document that there are hundreds of such wonderful words in PPS7 on the rural areas, about which noble Lords could urge, "Get it in the Bill because it will last longer". But it is not possible to put that form of wording in primary legislation.

I suspect that the parliamentary draftsmen would find that quote appalling. Hence, the difficulty we have had on Clause 38—with which we shall deal at some length later on—in trying to get a form of words that puts across the required meaning, that is not worthless but which does not have the effect of allowing people all over the country to stop development in its tracks.

I do not know for how long the previous PPS lasted on rural areas—quite a while. This one will last for some time. It is a major statement from the department. It is in no way devalued by the fact that those words are not in the Bill. I will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but we are at one in our aim to make sure that those words are a reality so far as concerns planning authorities.

Lord Greaves

The issue has become more interesting as a result of the Minister's reply. It was quite fundamental to a major flaw within the legislation. What the Minister seems to be telling the Committee is that it does not matter what is on the face of the Bill—we do not need to put anything there—because it is all going to be in documents issued by his department and sent out to people in the country; and nowadays what matters really is documents sent out by his department and not what Parliament actually entrenches as the law.

There is a fundamental difference between the two. We are talking about documents which the Government can or might change. Even this Government will not last for ever. They think they will, but they will not.

Lord Rooker

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Honestly, what the noble Lord is spouting is absolute rubbish. I want to explain why and to give him an example. If a planning application is dealt with one way or the other and ends up with an appeal, it will go before the planning inspectors, which are independent bodies. In arriving at a decision on whether that planning application is good or bad, a range of issues will be put before that inspector, including not just primary legislation because that is not detailed enough but all the other guidance, documents and statements from which I have quoted.

The noble Lord may say, "Well, it did not go to Parliament. The Government have issued what they wanted". The planning inspectors will issue reports on whether or not to allow an appeal, which will go to the Secretary of State. If the precise rules are not followed then we will be subject to a judicial review. So the noble Lord's idea which implied that we act on a whim, that we are bypassing Parliament and that these things do not matter, frankly is absolute rubbish. I feel that he evalues the debate by what he has just said.

Lord Greaves

I understand how the planning and appeal system works. I have been involved with it on many occasions. And of course what the Minister says is quite right—not that I am talking rubbish.

The point I am making is that there is a fundamental difference. The Minister can indulge in all the personal abuse he wants, but it does not alter the fact that there is a fundamental difference between what is on the face of legislation and what is issued by the Government under that legislation. That might carry a great deal of weight. Because it is detailed, it might be what carries most weight of all the advice that goes to the planning authorities, the development control authorities and the inspector dealing with the appeal. That is not the point that I am making. What fundamentally matters is the primary legislation.

We are not asking for all these great, exciting, flowery statements telling us what a wonderful countryside we want to live in to appear in the legislation. All that I am asking for in these amendments is some balance in what is set out in the Bill. What I am proposing is hardly longer than what is set out in the Bill, but it provides the balance. As far as I understood what the Minister said in response to my amendments, he agreed with them. He thought that they were basically right. That is what the Government were going to do, but he will not put them in the Bill. He did not provide any good reasons for that. I will read Hansard carefully, and I will read what the Minister said carefully, before deciding what further to do.

The Minister is saying, "let us have a one-page Bill that simply says there shall be a new planning system, and the details of this new planning system will be issued in statements sent out by the department". Let us argue each issue on its merits, and not on whether we are adding or taking out a few words in an overlong Bill.

I asked whether the definition of "development" that is to be understood in reading this Bill is the definition set out in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, I would like it in writing. It is important. Is it the Government's view that the definition of "development" includes no change? Does it include a situation in which in planning terms there is no change, in other words, no material change in the use of land and no actual physical development that classes as development requiring planning permission? Is a "no change" situation in planning terms encompassed by the word "development"? If it is. that is a new definition of the word "development" that we have never heard before, but it is one that we would like to take away and think about.

Lord Rooker

With respect, I have not given any personal abuse to the noble Lord—far from it. I criticised the tone of his speech. When I spoke, I specifically answered both the questions that he just asked me. I can repeat what I said—I will repeat it now, so it will force him to read Hansard tomorrow. I said that Clause 3(2) refers to development. This includes the use of land in planning legislation and it is therefore unnecessary to say specifically "i. e. that it is under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". I said that when I spoke to start with in answer to the debate.

The answer to his question is "yes", but that is the reason why it is not specifically defined as such. I also said separately, but speaking at the same time, that planning of development including the use of land covers both conservation and change. One could argue that conservation might be doing nothing. In certain circumstances it may mean making adjustments, but it covers both conservation and change. With respect, if the noble Lord is still unclear, he can come back to me, but I answered both those questions—both legitimate questions—when I originally replied to the debate.

Lord Greaves

I will be brief. I heard exactly what the Minister said when he replied. I did not understand what he was saying. I still do not understand what he is saying. That might be my fault; I will read it carefully in Hansard. The question that he has not answered is where the definition of the word "development" is in this Bill. Where do we go to for a definition of what the word means?

Lord Rooker

I actually said that because of the way "development" is referred to here, this includes—this is the way the accepted term is used—the use of land in planning legislation. It is therefore unnecessary to say specifically "i. e. that it is under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". We think Clause 113 may be relevant, but I need to check that. We may have something that will help the noble Lord—it will certainly help me. Clause 113(1) states: Expressions used in this Act and in the principal Act have the same meaning in this Act as in that Act". That covers it: the principal Act is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There will not be different definitions of the same word in the principal and the non-principal Act. Referring to the other Act as the principal Act does not mean that we devalue this Bill—it is no less important because it is not the principal Act. However, the definitions of the words are the same. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

Lord Greaves

I think the Minister is making my point for me, but I will do some more research on it.

Lord Hanningfield

I should like to come back to my original two amendments. I have some sympathy with the Minister; he has his parliamentary draftsmen, but I am sure that everyone preparing amendments is also getting advice and support from planning barristers, for example. I do not want to keep going over what "development" means, but there is some dispute over what development and the planning of development mean among people who participate in the legal side of planning. My amendments were intended to be helpful; they come from people who have been giving me advice on the Bill.

We have had this discussion backwards and forwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, and we will read what was said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.30: Page 2, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove the duty on regional planning bodies to prepare an annual report for the Secretary of State on the implementation of the regional spatial strategy for a region.

We accept that a regional planning body should be monitoring and, if necessary, should be in a position to report on how a regional spatial strategy is being implemented. Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause more than satisfactorily make provision for that.

What the Bill proposes, however, is an unnecessary and expensive burden on a regional planning body. I think that generally, in their approach to other tiers of government, central government places undue faith on the virtues of reporting upwards. Of course, that may be a particular fault of these proposals—perhaps where there is no democratic accountability, there is no mechanism other than to report to the Secretary of State for ensuring high-quality performance.

Reporting requirements may look innocuous in the context of a piece of legislation, but I can assure your Lordships that they look very different on the ground. They can be exhausting. In some instances, they drain the organisation of resources, manpower and motivation. To have officers working round the clock to produce reams of paper, endless reports to satisfy the insatiable demands of government departments, is futile and detracts from what the organisation is meant to be doing—that is, providing a service.

As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State would have complete control over what the regional planning bodies will have to show him at the end of each year. I fail to see how the House can pass a measure of this sort without having an extremely good idea about exactly what these reporting requirements will consist of. Without knowing how onerous they will be, it is difficult to form a judgment about their utility.

As all noble Lords know, regulation through reporting is a fairly blunt instrument. It depends on the notion of balance—balancing the level of risk involved against the harm that might result from something going wrong. I should have thought, from the Secretary of State's point of view at least, that there is very little that can go wrong. The Secretary of State is all over these provisions. To describe the provisions protecting the Secretary of State's interests as belt and braces would be to undersell them. There is in the Bill every conceivable mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State's interests are protected. This is simply another such mechanism. I am sure that the Minister will be sceptical about the value of this amendment, but he will recognise that a process that lends itself to annual reporting also lends itself to arbitrary, counter-productive box-ticking. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

I have also added my name to the amendment, but not because we do not believe that reporting is an important activity—clearly it is. Our objection is to the prescriptive nature of the function. If the regional planning body is required to undertake its other functions, at least it could be given discretion as to when and how it reports and not have to do so to a pattern or to the tune of the Secretary of State. Other points have been made earlier and I support the deletion of these provisions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am amused by this amendment. I am sorry but I shall make an accusation. I know it is late but I shall not detain the Committee long. I believe that noble Lords opposite should indulge in joined-up opposition. On a number of occasions I have spoken from the Dispatch Box against an amendment moved from the Benches opposite seeking to impose the duty of an annual report on the Government. Here we have an amendment to do exactly the opposite. I have often teased the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, that when stuck for an amendment on which to defeat the Government, the Opposition bring forward one that imposes a duty of an annual report. I am somewhat staggered by this amendment.

I am particularly amused and somewhat surprised, given that we have heard much about democracy and accountability in the context of the Bill. We believe that it is right that the regional planning body has placed upon it a duty to monitor and to prepare an annual report on the implementation of regional spatial strategies. It makes perfectly good sense to us. Planning is a continuous, ongoing process which needs to be reviewed and considered. We believe that it is absolutely essential. This amendment would drive a hole through what we believe is the very important process of review and monitoring. We also believe that that is how the regional planning body can keep a check on whether the strategy is effective and working and what changes need to be made.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that it was a burden. He probably wanted to know more of the detail. I shall provide that now as it is right that we do so. We expect regulations under Part 1 of the Bill, which we published in draft for consultation, to require the regional planning body to do the following: it must identify any policy in the regional spatial strategy which it thinks is not being implemented; it must cover in its annual report the reasons why; and it must set out what action it intends to take and whether it intends to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to change the policy. Because the regional spatial strategy is also central to housing delivery, the regional planning body will also be required to report progress against its housing delivery policy.

The regional spatial strategy sets out the Secretary of State's spatial policies for the region so, in our view, it is right that the regional planning body should prepare an annual report to the Secretary of State. In that the regional planning body will also be required to make the report publicly available particularly through its website.

We all know that planning is not a one-off; it is not something that just happens every so often; it is a continuous process. Our view is that it is undermined if those policies are not delivered.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have tried to restrain myself given the lateness of the hour and the gathering of the Whips. Would the Minister reflect on the fact that one of the reasons that we have a problem with these provisions is that the regional planning body has no executive authority? It does not do anything. The noble Lord is suggesting that this is a way in which to hold it to account for elements of the strategy which are or are not delivered, but the body itself has no powers to deliver any of those things. What it will be doing under the provisions of the Bill is simply to go through a long and onerous task of examining the delivery that has been done by other bodies. It will have to explain, for example, why it is that the Highways Agency has not built a road or why some piece of land has not been brought forward for industrial development.

The point that we are making is that the Government seem to be asking the regional planning body to give an account of the progress or lack of progress, when it is simply not in its powers to do so. That is why we have such a problem with the measure.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has a problem with that. However, she seems to have retreated to a position in which we just let things happen in a vacuum, without anyone holding anything together to see exactly where plans, processes and procedures have led us. The noble Baroness makes an acceptable point—which is also, I suppose, fairly obvious—that the regional planning body itself is not an instrument of delivery. However, surely it must be right that we know exactly what is going on. For that reason, we believe that the annual report and review and monitoring process should be put in place.

I know that Lib Dems have a problem with things being looked at and examined and processes being constant. I am sure that they would like to haw things free-floating and airy-fairy; that seems to be within their spirit. However, that does not take us anywhere.

We need to ensure that the planning process is ongoing, continuous and understood, and that we can see what comes out of it and what is delivered.

I suggest that the amendment is actually extremely damaging. As I said at the outset, I am somewhat surprised, given that the opposition parties, which often argue the case for an annual report to ensure that we are being held to account, that things are there on the record and that we do understand what is going on, have done something of a volte-face in this Bill and want to undermine its effect by taking this important system of measurement away from the legislation. I hope that noble Lords opposite will retreat to a position of consistency with all other demands that they make under other forms of legislation, in which the monitoring and review of the process is firmly in place.

Baroness Hamwee

The noble Lord says that he is amused by the amendment. He worries me terribly, and I believe that the mechanism controlling his amusement is badly in need of adjustment. However, that is perhaps not a matter for the Committee.

Parliament has a duty to scrutinise the acts of the executive and hold them to account. I cannot speak of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred, but that is why opposition parties very often propose the sort of amendment that he mentioned about Secretaries of State making regular reports. We are in a different situation here; there is a distinction.

Lord Hanningfield

We have had an interesting debate on the amendment, and we have noted the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Wearing various hats, I am involved in many annual reports, and I have had several discussions with James Strachan of the Audit Commission, whose motto is, "deregulation, deregulation, deregulation". The Audit Commission is scrapping lots of annual reports of this type not of the type that reports to Parliament.

We feel that that report is an onerous piece of bureaucracy to put on these bodies. Of course, they have to report, but the box-ticking of an annual report is not the right way forward. I am sure that we shall return to the matter, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.

House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.