I beg to move amendment No. 125, in

clause 5, page 3, line 20, at end insert

'within five years of publication of the previous RSS, or sooner'.

The amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies were regularly updated. They would be revised every five years, so regional planning bodies could not rest on their laurels in the preparation of up-to-date and relevant regional spatial strategies. I assume that the Minister would want regional spatial strategies to be regularly updated, and will be only too happy to accept the amendment.

There should be something in the Bill about updating regional spatial strategies. In previous proceedings on the Bill, we have made it more than clear that we disapprove of the regional element of planning, and we will discuss the role of regional planning bodies when we come to later amendments. However, we accept that the Government wish there to be a regional role to planning.

Designated regional planning bodies would not be properly democratically accountable, particularly in the absence of a referendum, but if they are to exist, their RSSs should be regularly reviewed—at least every five years. The hon. Member for Ludlow is right: such reviews should definitely take place within five years; indeed, we hope that they would take place sooner. The expectation should be that the RSS is regularly reviewed. After all, if the local planning authority is required to review its local plan documents regularly, there is no reason why the regional body should not live up to the same expectations.

The amendment raises the issue of when the regional planning body should prepare draft revisions. Before I deal with the specific amendment, it may assist the Committee if I explain why the timetable for the preparation of draft revisions to regional spatial strategy needs to be flexible, and why primary legislation is not the best vehicle with which to govern it.

Every region is different and faces different issues of differing complexity. Therefore, no two RSS revisions will be the same. That means that the time that it takes an RPB to consider all the issues properly, and when it will be necessary for them to prepare the draft revision, will vary. The time that RPBs will need to prepare revisions will also depend on the scope of the revision—whether it is a partial or a full review.

No Government have legislated for common fixed timetables for preparing, approving or adopting regional planning guidance or development plans. Fixed timetables are inevitably arbitrary and prevent the Secretary of State and the other parties involved in preparing RSS revisions from following the timetable best suited to the circumstances of the revision.

PPG11, on regional planning, set out an indicative timetable for the preparation of regional planning guidance. Its replacement—draft PPS11, on regional spatial strategies, which, the Committee will be aware, has been published for public consultation, also sets out such a timetable. It recommends that a project plan should be agreed between the Government office and the RPB for preparing the draft regional spatial strategy. We intend that the project plan should be published, and that the Secretary of State will assess the performance of the RPB against that timetable. We expect that it may generally take about two and a half years from the start of the revision process to the publication of the full and final RSS. The opportunity for more frequent reviews of particular parts of the RSS means that this timetable is fully achievable or may even be bettered.

Amendment No. 125 would require a regional planning board to prepare a draft revision of the RSS within five years of the publication of the previous RSS. It is important that RPBs have discretion to decide when best to prepare draft revisions of a regional spatial strategy. An RSS is meant to provide a broad development strategy for the region for at least at least a 15-year period and to address a wide range of issues and policy areas. It is important that it be kept up to date, but that does not suggest a fixed cycle of review.

A five-year review cycle might be appropriate for the transport elements of the RSS, so that they are prepared in time to inform the five-yearly reviews of local transport plans by county councils and unitary authorities under the Transport Act 2000. It is not necessarily appropriate for reviews of the RSS as a whole.

Clause 5(1) sets out a number of trigger points for the preparation of draft revisions. Usually, that will occur when the RPB decides that it is necessary. A key tool in deciding whether a revision is necessary will be the annual monitoring report, which will look at whether the RSS is being implemented in line with its aims. If it is not, we expect the RPB to say whether a revision to the RSS is necessary. However, experience over time may show that it would be sensible for parts of the RSS to be reviewed on a regular basis, and the Secretary of State would have a power to make regulations setting a time for such reviews. We have no plans to exercise that power, but it is sensible to provide for it. Regulations, rather than the Bill, are the appropriate way of providing such flexibility.

As a safeguard against the failure of an RPB to prepare a draft revision when the Secretary of State thinks it necessary, the Secretary of State would have a power to direct that it do so. After all, the RSS is the Secretary of State's policy, so it is right to enable him to ensure that work happens when he thinks sensible. The provisions will make sure that the RSS is revised when appropriate; an amendment setting an arbitrary fixed cycle is therefore unnecessary.

I hear what the Minister is saying, but unless the RSS is updated regularly—at least every five years—it will be difficult for local authorities to update their plans. Things might have changed, but the RSS might not have been updated to reflect those changes.

I think that I have said that there is plenty of flexibility in the Government's proposals for

the regular revision of regional spatial strategies. We differ over whether a set period should be laid down, and whether it should appear in the Bill. Broadly, I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Government are highly alert to the issue of the RSS. On that basis, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the Minister. I have listened to him carefully and in many ways I am reassured. However, he drew attention to draft PPS11, a copy of which I have in front of me. There is almost a contradiction in it, in that it asks when RSS revisions should be prepared and answers, in paragraph 2.1:

''The RSS is part of a continuous planning process, not a document that is set in stone over its fifteen to twenty year life span.''

How can it have a life span and also be a continuous document? If it is continuous, it does not have a life span. I find that slightly difficult. Presumably it does not have a life span, but is a series of rolling revisions, in which case I have a lot more sympathy with what the Minister is saying. The implication is that the RSS has a fixed life span, so perhaps the Minister should not only have regulations to provide for that, but make changes to the draft PPS.

We can make changes to the draft PPS; that is the point of having a draft. The regional spatial strategy is meant to be a broad strategic document that takes a number of factors into consideration. I accept the hon. Gentleman's imagery of a rolling programme of revision, but the caveat that I would enter is—

Order. I shall now suspend the Committee until this afternoon's sitting, and the Programming Sub-Committee will meet.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.