'(1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a plan to be known as the local development plan (''the plan'').

(2) The plan must specify—

(a) the documents which are to be local development plan documents;

(b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each document is to relate;

(c) which documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities which will be treated the same as if one single authority had prepared it;

(d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee under section 28;

(e) the timetable for the preparation and revision of the documents;

(f) such other matters as are prescribed.

(3) The local planning authority may withdraw their plan at any time before it is formally adopted.

(4) The local planning authority must—

(a) prepare the plan in accordance with such other requirements as are prescribed;

(b) submit the plan to the Secretary of State at such time as is prescribed or as the Secretary of State (in a particular case) directs;

(c) at that time send a copy of the plan to the RPB or (if the authority are a London borough) to the Mayor of London;

(d) prepare, publish and have regard to a Statement of Community Involvement as negotiated by Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c22).

(5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the plan as he thinks appropriate, but only when the Secretary of State and Authority can not agree on any matter.

(6) A direction under subsection (5) above must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.

(7) The local planning authority must comply with a direction given under subsection (5).

(8) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the following matters—

(a) publicity about the plan;

(b) making the plan available for inspection by the public;

(c) requirements to be met for the purpose of bringing the plan into effect.

(9) The local planning authority must revise their local development plan—

(a) at such time as they consider appropriate; or

(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.

(10) Subsections (2) to (8) apply to the revision of a plan as they apply to the preparation of the plan.

(11) When preparing the local development plan under subsection (1) above, the local planning authority must have regard to—

(a) national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

(b) the RSS for the region in which the area of the authority is situated, if the area is outside Greater London;

(c) the spatial development strategy if the authority in a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London;

(d) the RSS for any region which adjoins the area of the authority;

(e) the Wales Spatial Plan if any part of the authority's area adjoins Wales;

(f) the community strategy prepared by the authority;

(g) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;

(h) any other local development plan which has been adopted by the authority;

(i) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;

(j) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.

(12) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

(13) But the authority must not submit such a document unless—

(a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and

(b) they are satisfied that the plan is ready for independent examination.

(14) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.

(15) The examination must be carried out by a person (''the independent inspector'') appointed by the Secretary of State.

(16) The purpose of an independent examination is to determine in respect of the development plan—

(a) whether it satisfies the requirements in this section; and

(b) whether it is sound.

(17) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to submit his representation in writing to the independent inspector, who shall decide whether or not that person shall be heard at the examination.

(18) The independent inspector must—

(a) make recommendations; and

(b) give reasons for such recommendations.

(19) The local planning authority must publish recommendations made under subsection (18).—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made [21 October], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 149, in

clause 14, page 8, line 35, after 'appropriate', insert

'within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme.'.

Clause 14 stand part.

Amendment No. 285, in

clause 15, page 9, line 12, leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 286, in

clause 15, page 9, line 15, leave out 'scheme' and insert 'plan'.

Amendment No. 152, in

clause 16, page 9, line 28, at end insert—

'(aa) a strategic planning statement;

(ab) the appropriate authority's Local Transport Plan;'.

Government amendment No. 80.

Amendment No. 150, in

clause 16, page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 151, in

clause 16, page 10, line 9, after 'document', insert 'or'.

Clause 16 stand part.

Amendment No. 154, in

clause 18, page 10, line 29, after 'to', insert 'all material considerations including'

Government amendment No. 83.

Clause 18 stand part.

Amendment No. 155, in

clause 19, page 11, line 22, at end insert

'who will decide whether the examination should be in the form of a public inquiry examination or hearing.'

Amendment No. 156, in

clause 19, page 11, line 28, at end insert 'in all material respects.'

Clause 19 stand part.

Government amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 157, in

clause 20, page 12, line 3, after first 'a', insert

'local development document other than a.'

Government amendment No. 84.

Amendment No. 158, in

clause 20, page 12, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

'(d) The document may be taken into account for the purposes of developmental control by the authority until the Secretary of State has approved, modified or rejected the document or part (if the direction relates to only part of a document).'

Clauses 20, 21 and 25 stand part.

When the Committee was usefully adjourned by the Government Whip, we were discussing new clause 49 and with it a large group of Government and Opposition amendments as well as a number of instances of clause stand part. We have not had any of those clause stand part debates, so it might be helpful if I quickly run over those clauses.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but because discussions may go on outside, it might be helpful if I make one point absolutely clear. The out date cannot be changed, because the House has agreed to it. I mention that because I know that people are withdrawing for discussion outside and it would be wrong for me not to make it absolutely clear. I cannot accept a motion that changes that date.

Further to that, Mr. Pike, does that mean that whatever happens in the Programming Sub-Committee today, we cannot alter the out time of 5.15 this afternoon?

We can alter the time, but the date is fixed by the House and it is has appeared on the Order Paper. I want to make that clear, because it would be misleading if Members thought that they could change it. If we had looked at the matter earlier, we might have been able to make a change, as we could have tabled a motion to be discussed on the Floor of the House. We cannot do that now because we are in Committee and there is no way that we could get the House to change the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Pike. I take it that we would be in order if the Programming Sub-Committee decided that the Committee could run to

midnight, but that at one minute past midnight we would be out of order.

Yes.

May I proceed to debate clause stand part, which we have not discussed?

First, I want to discuss clause 14 stand part. I tell the Government gently that clause 14(4), as I suggest in my new clause, should include some form of conciliation. It is better if the Secretary of State can negotiate with local planning authorities as to what should be in their plans, prior to issuing the sledgehammer of direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made that point in his succinct summing up, immediately after a complicated debate. Conciliation is a better procedure than direction. Regarding clause 14(2)(f) and (g), it seems to me that the Secretary of State has more than adequate powers to deal with clause 14(8). There may be a bit of repetition.

Clause 16 is fairly superfluous, and could well have been incorporated into clause 14 with great usefulness. The benefit of the new clause, as has been recognised, is that it is consolidating. It has been recognised through the Committee that the shorter and more concise we can keep legislation, the easier it is for those who have to put it into operation. I have considerable sympathy for those poor people who will have to enact the provisions of this highly complicated Bill. I shall come back to that.

Clause 16 is repetitive. Clause 18 is sensible, and I have largely covered it in my new clause. I should like to ask the Minister for clarification of clause 19 on independent examination. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh asked the Minister after the last sitting—therefore, it does not appear in the record—whether, in an independent examination, all local development plan documents would be examined. I think that the Minister said that they would, but I should like to have that clarified on the record. I should also like to know why the local development scheme and the local development documents are not subject to independent examination. They are the policies that instruct the local development plan documents in that hierarchy, which my hon. Friend so eloquently summed up at the end of the last sitting.

Clause 20 is about intervention by the Secretary of State in local development control. It gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited power over the local planning process. Bearing in mind also the regional planning process, if planning is controlled to that degree from Whitehall, what is the point of having a local plan process? I should have thought that the Government would have learned by now. When the Government came to power, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as Secretary of State for Health, spent two years concentrating the running of the health service in Whitehall. The Government have been trying ever since to unravel what he did. If that happened in the

health service, why are we repeating the mistake in the planning process?

Local democracy should work. Local councillors are elected because they know their own locality better than anybody else. The lower down the scale, the better people know what is wanted in their areas. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) shakes his head, but it is true, unless his area is remarkably different from every other area of the United Kingdom, that local people have strong views on what should happen in their areas. They might not participate in the plan-making process, but when a controversial planning application comes up in an area, local people will be out on the street demonstrating.

I put down a strong marker from the Opposition that the Bill is a hugely centralising measure, which will put power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I am not sure that that is wise. Clause 21, on the withdrawal of local development documents, could have been usefully consolidated in another clause. I draw the Committee's attention to a quirk in clause 25, on the revision of local development documents, that I should have addressed in my new clause and did not. Subsections (4) and (5) concern enterprise zones. Perhaps we can tease out from the Minister how they interrelate. Subsection (4) says:

''Subsection (5) applies if any part of the area of the local planning authority is an area to which an enterprise zone scheme relates.''

The important bit of that is ''any part'' of the area. Subsection (5) goes on:

''As soon as practicable after the occurrence of a relevant event . . . the authority must review every local development document in the light of the enterprise zone scheme . . . if they think that any modifications of the document are required in consequence of the scheme they must prepare a revised document''.

That means that if an enterprise zone is proposed in any part of a local authority's area, all the local plan documents have to be revised. I am not sure that that is sensible. There might be an enterprise zone in one part of a local planning authority's area that has no effect whatever on the rest of the area, yet all the documents have to be revised. Will the Minister look at the two subsections and see whether they are drafted as they should be, or whether I have misunderstood?

I move on to my new clause 49 and some of the amendments. When the Minister told me earlier in the proceedings that he took my new clause very, very seriously—I hope that I remember his words correctly—I had, against all possible dreams, hoped that he was thinking of accepting some of it. I was quite unrealistic in that expectation. Furthermore, I had not anticipated him adopting some of the more draconian methods of dealing with the problem or reading out a huge brief prepared by his civil servants that was obviously written before I explained my new clause. Therefore, he did not take into account any of the remarks that I made.

I also did not anticipate that the Minister would misrepresent the new clause—I do not say deliberately—and therefore start off on the wrong premise and come to the wrong conclusion. The main

way he has done that is in assuming that the new clause refers to one development plan. It does not—it clearly states that there will be local development plan documents.

I accept a lot of what the Minister said in his long speech about the deficiencies in the existing system, such as the inflexibility as well as the time and difficulty in getting a revision due to the need to revise the whole plan. We feel that the existing system with amendments could have been made to work and that tearing it up and replacing it with a highly complicated new system will make a paradise for lawyers. We will see judicial reviews and all manner of case law created as a result of the Bill, which will add to the delay that it will bring.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Bill will create not only a paradise for lawyers, but a nightmare for planning authorities, particularly those trying to introduce the local development frameworks in the first phase, because they have recently heard from the Deputy Prime Minister that work done before the Bill receives Royal Assent will have to be done again? Many have already embarked on such work.

My hon. Friend, as so often in the Committee, raises a good point. In our last sitting, the Minister said that he hoped that all local planning authorities would have their development schemes in place by the end of 2004 and that all the documents had to be in place by 2007, which is totally unrealistic. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend, sotto voce, says that that cannot be done. He has considerable experience of the planning system through his work as councillor, as have I, working as a chartered surveyor over a number of years. I can tell everybody who is not used to such work that the new system is highly complicated and, as he says, it will be difficult for planning officers to bring it in quickly.

The Minister took the wrong slant not only on the plans, but on a number of issues in my new clause, and then came up with the wrong conclusions—considering that he had all the time in the world to study my new clause, I find that mildly irritating. Therefore, I do not think that a lot of his criticism stands the test of scrutiny.

I accept absolutely, however, what the Minister said about the existing system being inadequate, in that it is too slow and that 31 authorities do not have a plan in place. The Committee will not be surprised to learn that a number of practitioners and large developers who use the planning system have been through my offices in the last few weeks. The one thing they all say is, ''For goodness' sake, we hope that this new system is going to be quicker and clearer, but we don't think it is.'' The test of time will prove that, but we need to ensure that the system will operate.

I say in a non-partisan way that I hope the Minister takes every step to ensure that all guidance is given to local planning authorities and everyone else on exactly how the scheme is going to operate. I hope that there will be a large number of articles in the technical magazines and plenty of Government publicity on the website. I hope that planning officers and everyone else

will have more than adequate information at the earliest possible stage, so that they can begin to prepare to implement this very complicated scheme.

I do not accept that my new clause is inflexible. There are plenty of opportunities for flexibility, and even if the new clause does not say that it would be perfectly simple to amend it to make it more flexible. I give the Minister notice that I shall encourage my colleagues in another place to table a similar new clause including the added flexibility that he criticises this one for not having. Such a consolidated new clause would be a useful alternative basis for the Government to consider.

A consolidation involving doing exactly what the Government want to do, but in a simpler way, would be hugely beneficial to the practitioners, planning officers, consumers—the 500,000 people who make planning applications every year—and those who wish to make objections. The simpler the system, the easier it is for those people to use. They should find the system user friendly. If it becomes too complicated, they will be alienated from the planning system and feel that it is working against them. That will further weaken local democracy and further lower turnout in local elections.

I turn to some other criticisms. I have broadly covered the Minister's objections involving the first, second and third disadvantages that he gave. In respect of the third, at column 283, he said:

''A local planning authority will be able to produce just a single integrated development plan document or a series of documents, depending on local circumstances.''

Considering the complexity of the system, we found in the Minister's answer a useful and clear explanation of the Government's intention. Even in his explanation, however, all sorts of new terms turned up that we had never heard of before. He referred in column 282 to a ''proposals map'' and in column 283 to an ''integrated development plan''. Let alone all the different terms in the Bill, we now seem to be getting new Government terms by the minute. I just do not know how we are supposed to operate a system when we keep getting new Government terms.

The Minister went on to a fourth disadvantage. I thought that he was pretty churlish at this point. I do not want to introduce a bad note, but he said:

''A fourth disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman's new clause is that it would do less to help a community's businesses and other interested parties participate in planning.''

That is simply not true. My new clause makes it very clear that a local authority must have regard to the statement of community involvement and specifies how that is to be drawn up. He misrepresented what I had to say there. There is no question of local people being unable to participate in the planning process under my proposals. That is unfair.

The Minister then said, at column 284:

''It is not sensible to include the project timetable in the plan. That would mix up policies and the programme for preparing them. That is not necessary and it is not compatible with the plan-led system''.

However, the only problem is that the Government do exactly that in clause 14(2)(f). That says that there

must be a timetable, and of course there must. Again, I question what he said.

The Minister continued:

''Under our arrangements, the project plan for preparing the local development documents that make up the local development framework and for keeping the local development framework up to date is rightly kept separate, and altered in a way that is sensible.''

That is exactly what my arrangements do, so I do not know quite what he was getting at there. He then said:

''However, I put it to the Committee that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. How can the plan properly take account of community views if the inspector does not consider written representations''?

There is a difference when it comes to how I have drawn up my new clause and the Government view. If the inspector has to consider every oral representation, some groups of objectors will use that to create an abuse. There needs to be a safeguard. Of course, the inspector may—and should—wish to hear every oral representation. However, when some form of written statement has been received, there must be a lock-out if an abuse takes place at an independent inspector's hearing. My new clause usefully deals with that.

In column 285, the Minister makes perhaps the biggest mis-statement in his whole explanation:

''It is simply not true to say that our system is complicated''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 October 2003; c. 282–85.]

Time will tell whether that is true. I just point out that e = mcŽ2? is not a complicated formula until one starts to examine the detail. For those who do not know, e = mcŽ2? is Einstein's formula for the theory of relativity—it is on the clock tower on the M4, which takes people out of London. It is one of the most complicated formulae in the business, yet it consists of only three digits.

Virtually every practitioner I have come across admits that the Government's system is highly complicated. That might not matter provided that it works and gives a simpler, fairer and more transparent planning system, and that the 500,000 consumers who use it every year find that that is so. My great fear is that that will not be the case. We shall return to the subject on Report and it will be discussed again in another place. I have no doubt that their lordships will have a great deal to say about the Bill. A consolidating new clause, set out in the way that I have arranged it, represents a considerable improvement on the Government proposals that it would replace.

I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, who, in a paragraph in Hansard, neatly summed up what the Government intend to do in principle. However, that is like Einstein's theory of relativity—it is only principles and acronyms. My hon. Friend had some good acronyms for each category of document. This will be Hill's Bill—the Minister's great testimonial. He will be the one who tore up the existing planning system and replaced it wholesale with a new one. Time will tell whether that new system works, but I have a new acronym—CHAOS, which stands for ''Can Hill's Alternative Objectives Succeed?'' I submit that they will not.

Well, what a note on which to conclude. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his useful employment of his time since Tuesday afternoon. We have had a textual exegesis of my contribution on that occasion and I am sure that we all feel a great deal better for it. However, the Committee should not forget that our debate began on Tuesday afternoon. I want to respond not only to the hon. Member for Cotswold, but to the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Rayleigh. I sense that there is not an appetite in the Committee for a protracted debate. We have spent an hour on the matter so far, so I hope to make my response reasonably succinct.

The first contribution came from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I welcome the broad support that he extended to our proposals and, in particular, his support for the greater flexibility that we expect the system to bring. I am sorry that it took him nine months to understand the thrust of the new arrangements, although I am sure that that is no reflection on him. I strongly suspect that the arrangements will prove a good deal more accessible in practice—on the ground—than in their inevitably complex expression in legislative form, at least at first flush.

Let me also say, in the spirit of hands across the water, that I accept the hon. Gentleman's rebuke on the delay in publishing some draft guidance and regulations. However, we made considerable efforts to let the Committee have as much in draft as was humanly possible. We published PPS11 in part 1 regulations, PPS12 in part 2 regulations, regulations under part 4 and transitional regulations on local plans, but I accept that we can always do better. In broad terms, I am grateful to him for his comments.

I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold, who referred to a conciliation safeguard in his new clause. We certainly intend that a local planning authority should reach agreement with the Secretary of State on changes to its local development scheme and documents as an alternative to having to comply with a direction from the Secretary of State. Agreement may be reached before or after the Secretary of State has issued a direction. We, too, prefer an agreement to a direction, and we have tabled amendments to put the scope for that approach beyond doubt.

The hon. Gentleman alluded to the remarks of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who also mentioned conciliation and said that new clause 49 was better on it than the Government's proposals. Other than the arguments that I have just made, let me repeat a point that is on the record, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will peruse. I firmly believe that our proposals have a better prospect than the present system of achieving consensus locally. The new system will be easy for people to engage with because they will be able to choose what to look at and they will know how their authority will involve them through its statement of community interest.

I am grateful to the to the hon. Gentleman for his response in general to my early remarks. I shall not say

that he went so far as to support the proposals, but he obviously feels that there is more in them than does the hon. Member for Cotswold, from whom we have heard adamant opposition. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that the debate was of

''great importance and seriousness. I want to say to the Minister that I have been impressed by the way he has responded, and that, although we must take the decision now, I would want to reflect further on what he has said.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 October 2003; c. 293.]

That is an encouraging response. In due course, I shall illustrate the fact that there is at least understanding—great clarity—of our proposals on the Opposition's part , if not agreement.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, which we seem to be re-achieving, I have reflected deeply for many hours, some of them post-midnight, on what the Minister said. I have no doubt that the Opposition will continue to reflect carefully on his comments and on the contents of the Bill. However, I hope that the merits of the consolidation and simplification in my new clause will be considered before the Bill goes to another place, because the simpler we can make the system, the easier it will be for those who have to operate it.

I cannot respond in a bipartisan spirit by saying that we are minded to make changes, but we constantly take the contents of our legislation under consideration. I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the hon. Member for Ludlow: in practice, the proposals will be accessible. Nobody thinks that the planning system will ever be utterly simple—that is a chimera—but through the proposal the Government are determined to achieve transparency, accessibility and great openness towards the public, who are the people who count at the end of the day. That is the purpose of our commitments on community involvement, and I am sure that there will be further opportunities today to debate it.

Let me hurry along. The hon. Member for Cotswold said that the Bill gives the Secretary of State complete control of the planning system, but the things that the Secretary of State can or will do are essentially the same as they are now. For example, his powers and duties on regional spatial strategies are modelled on his current role in the procedures for regional planning guidance, and his powers to intervene in the preparation of local development frameworks are modelled on those under current legislation. New powers for the Secretary of State are linked to the introduction of new arrangements such as local development schemes and local development orders.

On clause 25, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of enterprise zones. The clause provides for part 2 to apply to revisions to local development documents in the same way as it applies to the preparation of documents. It also requires an authority to review and, if necessary, revise local development documents as soon as possible after an enterprise zone is designated or an existing enterprise scheme is modified. That is because development documents and enterprise zone schemes cover the same area. The clause enables the efficient revision of local development documents and

ensures that such documents do not conflict with enterprise zone schemes.

Before the Minister skates by that point, I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but I repeat that clause 25(5) states that

''the authority must review every local development document in the light of the enterprise zone scheme''.

That is an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement when an enterprise zone might cover only part of an authority's area.

But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is the potential for interaction even if an enterprise zone covers only part of the area. It seems reasonable that attention should be addressed to the review and possible revision of all elements of the local development plan. Again, we can revert to those matters later.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the scheme and supplementary planning documents are not subject to independent examination. I attempted to illustrate the answer by using the Middlesbrough local plan as a visual aid.

It was prepared under the old system.

Yes, but it shows that progressive authorities are already moving in that direction—we can learn from best practice elsewhere. I used the visual aid of the Middlesbrough local plan, which is an implementation plan, but obviously to little effect. I repeat that the scheme is a project plan that may be changed frequently by, for example, adding new documents. To require examination of the scheme every time that it is amended would remove flexibility and speed, which are essential in good project planning. The document is public, however, and the community can tell the local planning authority what it thinks and what changes it wants. Supplementary planning documents are subsidiary to development plan documents. They give further detail on the policies in the development plan document rather than establishing first principles.

The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, made a plea for improving the current system, and I have covered that point at some length. My preceding remarks explained how the Bill addresses that issue, and I do not agree with him. Our predecessors—including those in Conservative Administrations—took numerous steps to try to fix the current system, but the outcomes have only underlined the point that fundamental reform is necessary.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of limiting appearances before the inspector. Frankly, I am a trifle puzzled by how he reconciles that with his support for the principle in the Green Paper, which is that all parts of the community—individuals, organisations and businesses—must be able to make their voices heard on plans. I find it hard to square that support with the proposal that the inspectorate should see only those written representations seeking to change a development plan document and not those that support the local authority's proposals, and then only if the person making the representation

specifically asks for the inspector to see it. It is also hard to square it with the proposal that people making a representation seeking a change should not have the right to appear at the examination.

If the inspector sees only those representations that disagree with the authority's proposals, how can he reach a sensible decision on whether to support them? He must see all representations. Surely, we want plans with the greatest possible community support rather than those that upset the fewest people.

The hon. Gentleman reverted to his accusation about a plethora of terms in the Bill. I take that allegation with a pinch of salt, as in an earlier contribution he complained about the sudden appearance of ''policy'' in clause 16.

They do not have any policies.

The hon. Gentleman says that the explanation for the consternation at the appearance of ''policy'' is that the Conservative party does not have any policies. He ought to know about policies—the Liberal Democrats have plenty, but they just do not add up.

The hon. Member for Cotswold complained about the appearance of ''policy'' in clause 16, but I must point out to him the fact that it appears in clauses 1 and 37. He asked what a policy is. Clause 16(3) states that a local authority's

''local development documents must . . . set out the authority's policies (however expressed) relating to the development and use of land in their area.''

Clause 1(2) states that the regional spatial strategy sets out

''the Secretary of State's policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land within the region.''

Clause 37(5) explains what happens if two policies contained in the development plan documents and the regional spatial strategy conflict, providing for the most recent to prevail.

The hon. Gentleman also asserted that ''proposals map'' is a new term. It is not; it was in the Government's response to the Select Committee report on the Green Paper published in July 2002. I have identified the priority issues raised by him. He raised many other matters and we will carefully examine the Hansard record of them. I hope that he feels that I have dealt with his major concerns in reasonable detail.

I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, who is a new Member. In my previous incarnation as deputy Chief Whip, I was able to observe his performance as a rapidly promoted Opposition Whip. He earned my respect in that capacity and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that he has earned a little place in our hearts as well.

The hon. Gentleman distinguished himself in the previous sitting—his contribution was a positive tour de force and very reassuring—which was his introduction to the Government's new planning

proposals, of which he demonstrated a perfect understanding, with the benefit, I dare say, of my modest exposition. The last thing that I would want to suggest is that if he can understand our proposals, anyone can. On the contrary, to borrow from his talent for initials, Rayleigh rules OK. With that, I invite the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the motion.

One thing that we have learned from the Committee is that we have a different Planning Minister from the one before. His predecessor would have dismissed the new clause in a few short sentences. Whether or not we agree with what the Minister says, the Committee has benefited from his approach. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he has been incredibly courteous and he and his civil servants have devoted a great deal of time to the matter. I am sure that we shall return to it during later consideration of the Bill, so at this stage it is appropriate that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.