I beg to move amendment No. 142, in

clause 8, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

'(4A) any recommendations of the person appointed to hold the examination which he proposes to reject.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 143, in

clause 8, page 5, line 13, at end insert—

'and where necessary reconstitute the examination in public.'.

No. 144, in

clause 8, page 5, line 17, at end add—

'(8) The elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State, must publish the reasons for any changes it has made to the revised RSS when published under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (7).'.

No. 300, in

clause 8, page 5, line 17, at end add—

'(8) The Secretary of state must publish his reasons for any changes he has made to the revised RSS when published under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (7).'.

The amendment would ensure that the elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, gives reasons for disagreeing with the recommendations of the inspector who held the examination in public on the draft revision of the RSS. The elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, has the right under the clause to override the recommendations of the inspector who held the examination in public on the draft revision of an RSS, in much the same way in which the Secretary of State has the powers to override a planning inspector's decisions in any inquiry.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to publish any changes that he proposes to make to the draft and his reasons for doing so. However, he is not required to give reasons for his disagreeing with the inspector's recommendations. I assume that the Minister intends that to be included in the Bill. My reading of the clause may be wrong, and it may already be included. If it is not, however, the amendment would tidy up the wording of the clause.

Amendment No. 143 would ensure that any changes to a draft RSS proposed by the elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, to which there are objections, may also be reviewed by an examination in public. The Secretary of State can require the draft revision of an RSS to be subject to examination in public. However, there is no equivalent for an examination in public of any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft, whether or not an examination in public has been held on it. If the Secretary of State makes substantive changes following changes to the draft, there is no requirement for there to be public consultation on those changes. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is because he has to be reasonable all the time. Frankly, there is no come back here. Essentially the amendment would ensure that members of the public have as much opportunity to be heard on the proposal of the elected regional assembly or the Secretary of State on the draft revision as they will on the regional planning body's initial draft revision.

Amendment No. 144 is designed to ensure that the elected regional assembly or the Secretary of State give their reasons for decisions about the revision of the regional spatial strategy. Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any changes that he proposes to make to the draft revision of the RSS. That duty to give reasons should also apply when the Secretary of State publishes the final revision and when he withdraws the draft revision of the RSS. Again, I hope that these amendments clarify the actions of the Secretary of State. I would struggle to imagine that the Minister could disagree with their intention. As usual, I will probably be told that they are entirely unnecessary.

Allow me, Mr. Hurst, to remind the Committee of the purport of the amendments.

Amendment No. 142 would require the Secretary of State to publish any recommendation of the person appointed to hold the examination that he proposed to reject. Amendment No. 143 would require the Secretary of State, when considering representations on proposed changes to draft revisions, to reconstitute the examination in public where necessary. Amendment No. 144 would require an elected regional assembly to give reasons for any changes that it has made to an RSS after the examination in public or if it proposes to withdraw a draft RSS. The duty would fall on the Secretary of State if there were no elected regional assembly.

It may help the Committee if I explain what will happen with the report of the person holding the examination and any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft revision of the RSS prepared by the RPB. People and bodies that make representations on the RPB's draft revision are likely to propose a wide variety of changes. The examination will consider the most important issues raised. Clause 8(2) requires the Secretary of State to consider not only the report of the person appointed, but those representations that that person has not considered, so his proposed changes will be influenced by more than just the recommendations in the report.

The report of the examination will certainly be published. Both the Secretary of State and the RPB must publish any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make under the regulations for part 1 of the Bill. That comes in regulation 13.

The Minister says that he must take account of representations that the inspector has not taken into account. Does he have to or is he entitled to reconsider representations that the inspector has taken into account? May he only consider the inspector's report on those representations?

Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that?

The Minister said that the Secretary of State was entitled to take account of representations that the inspector had not taken into account. I asked whether the Secretary of State is entitled to take account of representations that the inspector has taken into account or is he merely entitled to take account of the inspector's report on those representations?

The answer to the first part of the choice that the hon. Gentleman posed is yes. That is for the record. If there is likely to be a long delay between the submission of the report and the publication of proposed changes, the report may be published at the same time, as people will want to know what changes are made in the light of it.

Clause 8(3) requires the Secretary of State to publish his proposed changes and reasons. Under the proposed regulations, the Secretary of State and the RPB are required to publish not only an explanation of the changes made, but decisions not to make changes recommended in the report. The Secretary of State will also send these changes and reasons to statutory consultees and others who made representations on the RPB's draft revision. The

regulations also provide for comments to be made on the Secretary of State's proposed changes.

Following the consultation on the proposed changes, the Secretary of State will issue final revision to the RSS. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr. Hurst, it is that time in the Committee's proceedings when I must collect myself. The Bill, regulations and the procedural policy and guidance set in draft PPS11 on regional planning provide robust and transparent arrangements for the process. It should already be clear why amendment No. 142 is not necessary. I wish in many respects that I could sit down now, but I am aware that I also need to address amendment No. 143.

Amendment No. 143 is about having a further examination in public to look at representations on the Secretary of State's proposed changes. I do not agree with that approach for two reasons. First, most of the changes that the Secretary of State will propose will flow from the appointed person's report. The presumption is that the Secretary of State will amend the draft RSS revision in accordance with that report, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. Other, more minor changes may arise from representations that are not considered in the report. If the changes arise from the report, the issues will already have been considered at the examination. Therefore, representations on proposed changes will normally be in relation to matters already considered at the examination and will thus not need a further examination; or, if the representations arise in relation to the more minor changes, they are likely to be more minor, not warranting an examination.

Secondly, a further examination into the same proposed changes may not be the most sensible way to proceed in the unlikely event that a major new issue arises after the Secretary of State's proposed changes have been published. An example might be the emergence of a radically different regional economic strategy produced by the regional development agency. If that happens, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether a further round of consultation can accommodate it, or whether the change is so fundamental that the regional planning body will need to produce a new draft revision. If the latter, clause 8(7) provides for the Secretary of State to withdraw the draft revision. The regional planning body would be able to look at the proposals in the light of the new information and prepare a new draft revision, which can then go through the examination process afresh.

I have already dealt with the reasons for changes, which the first part of amendment No. 144 raises. The second part would require the Secretary of State, where there was no elected regional assembly, to give reasons for withdrawing a draft RSS. The approach that we have adopted throughout parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is that for the more significant, substantive powers of the Secretary of State, it is right to place in the Bill a duty to give reasons. For example, when the Secretary of State proposes any changes to a draft revision of the RSS, he must give his reasons why, under clause 8(3). That is important because the final published version will form part of the development plan. Given the significant substantive nature of those powers, it is

appropriate for the giving of reasons to appear in the Bill. In addition, if anyone is aggrieved by the policies in an RSS revision or the reasons given for it, they can challenge the validity of the revision under clause 78.

However, if the Secretary of State decides to withdraw a draft revision, it is essentially procedural, and it is unnecessary to publish the reasons in the Bill. That is similar to the current provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, whereby the Secretary of State has various powers of direction for which there is no statutory requirement to give reasons. For example, he has no statutory requirement to give reasons when he calls in proposals in a local plan for his approval under section 44, although it is our policy that the Secretary of State would provide reasons, unless they were obvious.

Any exercise of those powers could be challenged by way of judicial review, and any arbitrary exercise of power would risk a successful challenge. For those reasons, any Minister would sensibly explain why he was exercising the power. As I have explained, the Government seek to provide reasons for their decisions, as a matter of good practice. The amendment understandably seeks safeguards around the exercise of the power to withdraw. However, there are sufficient safeguards within our system of administrative law and practice, which make it unnecessary.

If it were not obvious why the draft revision was being withdrawn, consideration would be given to publishing the reasons why. Nevertheless, I undertake to the Committee to reconsider whether we need to clarify that point in the final version of PPS11 and possibly provide for it in regulations, as we have when the RPB withdraws a draft revision.

I fear that I have burdened the Committee with a lengthy response but these are serious matters. I urge the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

We have had a full and cogent response to amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I am sure that when I consult Hansard I will read a very cogent response to amendment No. 142.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister, in his reply, played a very straight bat, even if he did not always manage to maintain a very straight face?

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.

I am particularly reassured by the Minister's final point. He always saves the best points to the end—they must be written to save up the punch line. I am reassured by the fact that he will consider my point, with particular regard to the Secretary of State's powers, in his revisions to draft PPS11. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.