I beg to move amendment No. 271, in

clause 2, page 2, line 3, after 'may', insert 'only'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 272, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end, insert

'if a referendum has been held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and it has been voted in the affirmative under the provisions of that Act.'.

Amendment No. 117, in

clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

The amendment, if I can find it—

Would I be right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that the amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can give a direction recognising the body as the regional planning body only when it satisfies such criteria as are prescribed? At present, it is not a stipulation.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. He has explained amendment No. 271 better than I can, so I move quickly on to the next amendment.

Amendment No. 272 would provide that the regional authority may carry out those functions only if a referendum has been held. This is an important clause. We believe that regional planning bodies should not be created until a referendum has been held and voted for in the affirmative. It is a question of democratic accountability. Regional bodies are almost exclusively made up of indirectly elected members. No one knows who they are. They are not accountable to anyone, or are only slightly accountable. The granting of such huge powers to largely unaccountable people is a democratic deficit.

I hark back to our previous debates on whether the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's policy until there is an elected regional assembly. I hope that we never have elected regional assemblies. If

we do, the whole democratic position will change. Until then, we have a democratic problem: the Government are rushing ahead with the regional planning agenda, in which we do not believe. They should carefully consider the democratic legitimacy of that.

I believe that I have already spoken to amendment No. 171, so I will move on to the amendment tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton .

Amendment No. 117 would leave out subsection (3), which states:

''The Secretary of State may give a direction withdrawing recognition of''

a regional planning body. It is not so much that I want to take that power away, as that I want the Minister to explain under what circumstances the Secretary of State might withdraw recognition of a regional planning body and what the consequences would be if the Secretary of State assumed the functions of that body. That is probably how it would work. That provision is particularly draconian, and I assume that the Minister will say that he hopes that it will never have to be used, and that he would not go anywhere near it.

We need to know—I am sure that local planning bodies would like to know—under what sort of circumstances the Secretary of State would withdraw recognition, and how the system would then function. If regional spatial strategies were operating across the country and one regional planning body were to have its recognition withdrawn, there would be a great hole in the planning structure, which would have to be filled by the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Secretary of State could cope with the minutiae that I am sure will exist in every RSS in the country, but he may struggle to find the time to do so. What arrangements will there be to deal with such circumstances? Amendment No. 117 is a probing amendment. It is for the Minister to explain how, why and what would happen in those circumstances.

I take this opportunity to add my strong support to the principle of amendment No. 272, although I suspect that it is not the way to solve the problem because the drafting would have slightly odd consequences.

The Bill will take some powers away from county councils, but not all of them: they will be left with waste and minerals. Those powers are currently administered by elected county councillors, but will pass to RPBs. By next autumn, we may have some referendums, which will hopefully result in yes votes in the three northern regions. It is conceivable that six months to a year later, we will have functioning elected regional assemblies in those regions. Short of an earthquake, the Government are not going to win referendums in the south-east, the south-west or, I suspect, most of the midlands, given their regional boundaries. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be elected regional assemblies, certainly in the south-east, in the foreseeable future. I regret that, as I would like us to have regional assemblies. The boundaries are wrong and should be changed.

We will have a period of five or 10 years, in which powers will have been taken from elected councillors and given to an unelected body, an RPB. We will have a quasi-elected regional body—not even that; it will have people on it who have been elected to other bodies—councillors roughly in proportion to the political strength in the region—but that is not really the same. The regional planning bodies will not be accountable in such circumstances. They are accountable to the Secretary of State. Essentially, until there are elected regional assemblies, this represents a centralising of power.—Ultimately, power rests with the Secretary of State. That is of deep concern to anybody who is a democrat or a proponent of the devolution of power, as I am sure that the Minister is.

However, for a considerable period, probably at least five years, there will be no devolution of power. Amendment No. 272 seeks—probably in an imperfect way—to ensure that the powers are not taken from the county councils and that the regional planning body is not set up until there is a regional elected assembly. Until then, we would continue to have the current structure. There is planning at a regional level—the Government office does some—but the power still rests with the county councils. I realise that that will cause the Government problems, because there will be different speeds in different parts of the country. However, that is a consequence of devolution, something that both my party and the Minister's agree is a way forward.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we already have different speeds in different parts of the country and that we already have different arrangements for London?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are in a multi-speed situation in terms of devolution and I see no reason why we cannot be multi-speed in terms of the rearrangement of the planning system. Once there are elected bodies—we heard under the previous clause that the powers will be taken away from the Secretary of State when there are elected regional bodies—there will be some devolution of power. The Secretary of State will no longer have the control over planning that he has at the moment in that he could call in the plan of any level of body and exert control over it.

I hope that the Minister will, if he does not accept the amendment—I would be stunned if he did—at least take good heed that there is an electoral problem for the Government. This is, potentially, the most controversial aspect of the Bill—the taking of powers from elected bodies and handing them to unelected bodies. I am fairly certain that that is something that the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and probably many Labour peers and Cross Benchers in the Lords will have an interesting time agreeing on. I suspect that the Minister will need to find a way of accommodating our concerns. If a line is to be drawn in the sand on this Bill, this is probably where it is. If the Minister does not accept amendments here or on Report, this is probably the issue that will cause us to continue to vote against the Bill, as we did on Second

Reading. We accept that there is much in it that would improve the planning system, but to take powers away from elected people and hand them to unelected people is a step too far. We cannot find that acceptable.

I am pleased that the Conservatives have tabled the amendment, even though I do not think that it is the way to deal with the problem, as it has allowed us to raise the issue and to deal with a serious democratic deficit.

I am pleased to support the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ludlow has pointed out, they sharply illustrate the key problem, which is that local authorities are going to lose powers either to a nominee or a group of nominees of the Secretary of State, or to the Secretary of State himself. Neither the nominees nor, to a lesser extent, the Secretary of State, will have any democratic accountability within the region.

The group of nominees that has been appointed to the regional planning body for the south-east of England, fortuitously, includes a member of the local authority in my constituency. His name is Harry Rees and he is the economic development portfolio holder. Until he retired recently, he ran a successful tea shop in Shanklin, so he is eminently qualified for such an illustrious position.

Which party does he represent?

He calls himself an independent, but he is an ex-Liberal. He still works for the Liberal Democrats. Like many independents in my constituency, he has overthrown his independence to sign up to a dirty coalition with the Liberal Democrats—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is distracting himself.

I was merely responding to the question in my normal, courteous fashion. However, I shall take your advice, Mr. Hurst. He, at least, has the advantage, in terms of representing the Isle of Wight, of being a resident of it. The Secretary of State is not a resident of the Isle of Wight and most of the appointees to the planning body are not residents of the Isle of Wight. The Secretary of State is not even a resident of the south-east of England. He is a resident of Hull, of Clapham, and of Admiralty arch. He is, for one day a month, according to a recent article in the Evening Standard, a resident of Dorneywood. However, although that is technically in the south-east of England, it is so metropolitan that it hardly counts.

My only concern about my hon. Friend's amendment is that if the Secretary of State does not designate one of the bodies, then the Secretary of State will be the regional planning body for the south-east—or, indeed, any other area. While there is very little of advantage in a regional planning body that is designated by the Secretary of State—a series of place men appointed by the Secretary of State—there is even less advantage in the Secretary of State himself acting as the regional planning body. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that limited criticism. I shall, of

course, support his amendment, but I hope to have the opportunity to vote against the clause on stand part. One problem with the regional bodies is that they represent no known geographical area. There is no such place as the south-east of England. There might be such a place as Yorkshire—of course there is—but there is no such place as Yorkshire and Humber. There is no such place as the south-west of England. Any hon. Member who represents a Cornish constituency would concede that, at least going by the boundaries designated by the Secretary of State. There is, of course, a region known as East Anglia, and I shall not argue too much about its boundaries, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh might have a different view from mine. However, the idea of regions is alien to the traditions of most people in the area broadly south of a line from the Wash to the Severn. For that reason, among others, I reject the idea of regional planning bodies.

As a proponent of regional government, I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the current boundaries. The Government made a big mistake in accepting boundaries that were established by a Conservative Government for an entirely different reason—for administrative purposes. I believe that it is possible to redraw the regional boundaries so that they can be accepted by the public and can perform a useful function. If the regions were such that they made sense to the people—such as the Marches region in my area, with which people identify—would many of his reservations disappear?

Some of my reservations would certainly disappear. The idea of sharing power over one's life is entirely acceptable to those with a commonality of interest. However, it would be difficult for my constituents who live in Ventnor or Freshwater to identify a commonality of interest with people in Guildford or Milton Keynes. I am sure that it would be equally difficult for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to identify a commonality of interest with the constituents of St. Ives and South-East Cornwall.

There is a strong divide—I received a newsletter about it the other day—

Order. I remind hon. Members that the clause is not so widely drawn. We are not debating the merits or otherwise of regional government.

I accept your guidance, Mr. Hurst.

The point of discussing the boundaries encompassed by regional government is whether it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power over a region, or to designate that power to someone or something else. That is why I drew attention to the different demands of various parts of the country. I can see that I am trespassing on the Committee's time, and that they might want to deal with more than the first three clauses before 7.15 pm. I am pleased to support the amendments, but I think that we might have a debate on clause stand part.

I was magnetised by the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric and could not wait for him to continue.

I will endeavour to reply to this interesting and wide-ranging debate. To begin, I would like to identify the purpose of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. Their effect would be to alter clause 2 to allow the Secretary of State to designate a body as a regional planning body only if there had been a positive vote in a referendum for an elected regional assembly.

Some opponents of the arrangements in the Bill take the line that there should be no planning reforms in England. Instead, they believe that the new arrangements should apply only in areas where elected regional assemblies are to be established, if and when they are. As drafted, the amendments appear to go even further, implying that there should no regional planning bodies until such time as the regions have voted in favour of an elected regional assembly.

The Bill would make the Secretary of State responsible for preparing all revisions to regional spatial strategies and for exercising the functions of the regional planning board generally as he thinks appropriate. Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power under clause 2 (3) to withdraw recognition of a body as the regional planning body. The amendments raise two key issues—first, the need for reforms to regional planning and, secondly, whether changes should be made only if a region has voted in favour of an elected regional assembly in a referendum.

I contend that we need effective planning at regional level. The Government believe, as did their Conservative predecessors, that regional planning is essential. Without it, we cannot sensibly address the many planning problems that cut across administrative boundaries, or properly co-ordinate transport and other investment decisions to ensure that we get the right strategic balance. Decisions about correcting major imbalances between growth and decline in a region cannot be taken at a lower level.

A practical example is the 1996 regional planning guidance 13 for the north-west, issued under the Conservative Government. That was a good illustration of why regional planning is necessary. One of its objectives, which we supported and which was right at the time, was to secure a modest shift in emphasis to the principle transport axes running north to south—the west coast main line and the M6 motorway.

Of course, the regional planning system needs to be improved. It needs to be more responsive to regional circumstances and priorities, and better able to tackle strategic planning problems where they occur. Frankly, it needs more teeth. For those reasons, regional spatial strategies should be statutory, and so part of the development plan. We should not continue with a system where outdated lower-level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. We need a system for strategic planning based around interdependent areas on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative

boundaries. County boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at a regional or sub-regional level.

We need inclusive regional planning bodies, which consult with communities and stakeholders and involve local authorities, to take the lead on reviewing and proposing revisions to regional spatial strategy. That is what part 1 of the Bill is about.

I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold that the new arrangements for regional planning will result in a democratic deficit unless they happen only where there are elected regional assemblies, which he does not support either. First, a system enshrined in law rather than one based on administrative arrangements, such as the regional planning guidance issued as part of the current system, is surely stronger in democratic terms, if only because it is subject to this kind of scrutiny and debate. Secondly, the regional spatial strategy is ultimately the Secretary of State's document, and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and to this House. Thirdly, the members of the regional planning body are accountable to their constituent bodies, which include local authority members.

The arguments about the democratic deficit imply arbitrary, unaccountable decision making by the regional planning body, which is not a fair picture. Through legislation and guidance, we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest will have the opportunity to be involved in the regional planning process, which provides a place for representations, examinations in public and consultation with communities, stakeholders and local authorities.

The hon. Gentleman says that those changes should happen only in regions where people have voted for an elected regional assembly, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree. The regional planning reforms are essential and should be implemented as soon as possible. They should not be delayed and made only in regions in which people have voted for an elected regional assembly.

The Government are committed to stronger regional arrangements in all regions and establishing elected regional assemblies if people vote for them in a referendum. We made that point clear in the regions White Paper, ''Your Region, Your Choice''. We have said that we are committed to policies that recognise regional differences as a strength for the nation and that are developed closely with the people whom they affect. We want regional solutions founded in regional knowledge.

I shall turn to the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272.

I have a practical question about accountability. Let us assume that as part of the regional spatial strategy a decision is taken to build 5,000 houses in a town in an area that does not have an elected regional assembly. The people of that town are violently against large-scale house building, perhaps

because they feel that their local infrastructure cannot cope with it. What democratic accountability is there for the people in that town? They cannot vote out their elected regional representative because they do not have one. They could vote against their county councillors, but the Bill denudes their county council's planning power. They can protest to their Member of Parliament, but he does not have responsibility for regional spatial strategy. How could those people protest democratically about a decision that they believe to be injurious to their quality of life?

If such a situation were to arise, it would be desperately serious. The premise of the hon. Gentleman's concern is inaccurate, because it assumes that the responsibility for a decision to build 5,000 houses in a locality lies with the regional planning body. That is not the case; it is the responsibility of the local planning authority and the local district. The regional spatial strategy will be a material consideration because it must be embraced in the local development framework, as he knows.

The responsibility for decisions of that nature is essentially for the locality. It is true that we expect the regional spatial strategy to identify areas of growth, of stability and even of restoration of the green belt. Nevertheless, local people will not face the hon. Gentleman's scenario.

I am not sure whether the Minister is right. This matter is germane to the whole debate. For many people, in acid terms, the debate comes down to this point. Will he explain which body will take responsibility for the allocation of the number of houses in different towns? In the past, responsibility has filtered through different levels. Under the new system, if it were decided to build so many tens or hundreds of thousands of houses in a region, who will decide where they go, working on the basis that most local authorities would resist large-scale house building in their backyards?

Perhaps I ought to clarify the situation. The Secretary of State is accountable for the regional spatial strategy, which will set the overall target for growth, but the local planning authority will decide the sites. Those houses would have to be in a development plan document for which the local planning authority is accountable. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

I see where the Minister is going but it does not help me.

The local planning authority might have to decide the sites but it would not have to decide the numbers. The number of houses allocated to each local authority is critical. If a local authority is saddled with a certain number of thousands, it must solve the problem of trying to decide where they will go. The number of houses that each local authority gets is critical. Under the new system, how will that decision be taken?

Essentially, the global targets for local authorities emerge from the regional spatial strategy, but local decisions about the location of sites will be part of the local planning authority's responsibilities and will form part of the development plan document.

May I help the Minister? The concern is that local people's wishes and local elections will be completely ignored. I use Kidderminster hospital as an example. A health authority that was appointed by the then Secretary of State—rather like the regional planning bodies that the Secretary of State will appoint—closed it, and the then Secretary of State ratified the decision.

Locally, the political party, Health Concern, which was opposed to the decision, won almost all district and county council elections. The decision resulted in the election of an independent MP with the second largest majority of any Member. It is probably one reason why I was elected, overturning a Conservative seat.

The expression of tens of thousands of local votes meant absolutely nothing, but in this case, there are local powers.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his interventions briefer than that.

Let me clarify the situation even further. It is, as I have said on several occasions, not for the district authority to decide the global target and what the numbers are. However, that situation, essentially, is no different from the present situation. In the present situation, with the exception of two-tier areas, the decision is filtered down through the counties.

I appreciate the Minister's courtesy in giving way. That is exactly right. Apparently, there is a county tier and the matter is then dealt with through negotiations between the county and the various district councils. However, that tier is being largely taken out of the equation.

What about structure plans?

Structure plans are going. In some cases, the regional planning body will effectively be taking decisions to allocate houses to 60 or even 80 different local authorities around the whole region. In the past in my home county, decisions were usually taken in Chelmsford and negotiated with the other councils in Essex; now they will be taken in Cambridge. Theoretically, those decisions will be taken for the whole of East Anglia under this model. What accountability is there in that? Ironically, when it comes to health, the Government have gone the other way. They abolished regional health authorities because, they argued, they were out of touch, and created strategic health authorities on a county model because they believed that such bodies were more responsive to local needs.

The hon. Gentleman slightly over-eggs the pudding in suggesting that Cambridge is so remote from Rayleigh that it cannot be aware of the local circumstances. There must be a geographical locus for such a body in any circumstances. However, let me reiterate that the body is not wildly unaccountable. It is constrained by statutes, instead of administrative law; the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament and his decisions are subject to parliamentary scrutiny; and, of course, the regional planning body, in its majority part, comprises elected members, who are accountable to their own

authorities. To that extent, we are not talking about an organisation that is wholly removed from any kind of democratic scrutiny or accountability. It has clear lines, in the traditions of our democracy, to democratic accountability.

The one area that will be considered as part of the regional spatial strategy that is currently considered by counties is transport and roads. Decisions on roads will move up from county level. I am talking not about trunk roads, but about A and B roads. Planning decisions on new roads will pass up to the regional authority. That is clearly a case in which a matter that is currently decided by elected councillors will be decided, at best, by people who have been quasi-elected—and I do not believe that it is as good as that.

Let us remember that the Secretary of State does not appoint regional planning boards: 70 per cent. of the members of regional planning boards are decided on the basis of appointment by local elected authorities. They are elected members, like ourselves, and we would expect them to be responsive to the needs of localities. The other element that comprises the regional planning board is the representatives of the economic and social layers in the locality, who are also representative of local interests.

Hon. Members have ridden the horse of unaccountability a little too hard. There are issues, and they would be considerably simplified by the emergence of elected regional authorities, but in the meantime we are not talking about the arbitrary disposition of powers by regional planning bodies.

As the only Member of Parliament who has ridden winners under rules, I am going to ride this race a lot harder. If a remote, unelected regional body makes a huge increase in a local authority's allocation of houses, there will be a lot of democratic dissatisfaction in that area.

The Government's record on such matter is not very good. The communities plans are an example of that. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) tells me that his local authority was not consulted before the community plan was announced, yet the housing allocation there is to be doubled at a stroke. If the Government behave like that, it is not surprising that, as the hon. Member for Ludlow says, local people will feel aggrieved and will take it out at the local elections by electing somebody else. The Government will have to address that problem, because there will be widespread dissatisfaction.

Imagine the local authority in my constituency, in the Cotswolds in north-east Gloucestershire, having a hugely increased allocation imposed on it by a regional body sitting 200 miles away in Exeter. That is not local democratic accountability, and the Minister will have to address the problem.

The hon. Gentleman speaks as though we were totally lacking in experience of regional bodies, but we have had the experience of the regional

development agencies and we make dispositions about which localities should receive investments through grants, for transport developments, for example. Now we also have the experience of the regional housing boards, where, again, there is a grouping of representatives of the local authorities that, in part, have recently been asked to make dispositions with regard to housing investment. There are always difficult choices in such situations; nevertheless, we have some experience that it is possible for regions to come together and agree about local dispositions within such bodies.

The examples from south-west Bedfordshire, the so-called growth areas, the global issues in the wider south-east and RPG9, which sets targets for housing growth relate to that. I fear that you may intervene on me at any moment, Mr. Hurst, because you think that I am going wider than the subject before us. I shall simply tell the hon. Member for Cotswold that despite all the protests about higher housing targets, it should be recognised that most of the growth catered for in the relevant provisions is indigenous growth. Local people who require more houses—

Order. The Minister is absolutely right: he is going too far.

He wanted to be ruled out of order.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) rose—

Oh, at last. I fully acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was with us for 10 minutes at the first sitting, but after six sittings in which he has not appeared, it is my great pleasure, as we come to the dregs of our final sitting, to invite the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to intervene.

The Minister is kind, as always, which was totally predictable. Having read Hansard, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has dominated the Committee with his excellent insights and held the Minister to account admirably. May I ask whether the Minister would feel happier and more comfortable if the regional planning boards were elected and accountable?

It is the intention of the Government, as I understand it is of the hon. Gentleman's party, that we should move towards elected regional authorities. The Government would certainly be content for regional planning boards to operate under that particular form of democratic imprimatur.

Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer them to operate under an assembly, or is he indifferent?

Keith Hill rose—

Order. We are again moving into the merits or otherwise of regional governance, as opposed to the mechanisms set out in the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I do not feel entirely rescued from that issue, but it is perfectly true that we envisage the operation of regional planning boards under the aegis of elected regional authorities. In the meantime, however, we recognise that there is a need for regional planning. The measure sets out that

regional planning structure within an effective and accountable framework.

I want to return to the example of south-west Bedfordshire—a subject on which I want the Minister to respond, for the record. If the region or the Government hand out hugely increased housing targets, surely it is wrong that the local authority should not be consulted first, but should simply be told after the decision has been taken. If that happens, it will give rise to much local dissatisfaction when the regional authorities draw up their regional spatial strategy.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a specific case, because I do not know the circumstances. However, the general principle that he enunciates is absolutely correct. We want that level of consultation and involvement in the elaboration of regional spatial strategies. All my remarks in our proceedings have carried that emphasis. For these objectives to be realised, we look to up-front involvement, to community involvement, to early discussions and to community plans at regional and local levels. I make no bones about the reasons for our commitment to greater community involvement—a thread that runs throughout the measure. Our conviction is that local people have the right to a large say in great changes to their local environment, but we also expect that process of engagement to increase the understanding and acceptance of the case for growth where it is necessary.

Before the Minister finishes speaking, I do not want to let him escape having to talk about my reason for tabling amendment No. 117, which, as I said, is a probing amendment. He gave a technical explanation of what the amendment would do, with which I agree. However, I did say that I had tabled it to get him to explain why and in what conditions the Secretary of State would withdraw recognition of a regional planning body, and what the consequences would be if the Secretary of State assumed those powers. He has not yet done so.

That is because I am still coming to it; I have been detained on other matters, but let me now hasten forward. Before that last flurry of exchanges, which I welcome, I was about to discuss the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. As I read those two amendments, the latter would leave out subsection (3), and both would prevent the Secretary of State from recognising a body as the regional planning body until such time as a region had voted in favour of an elected regional assembly. In regions where that had not happened, there could be no designated regional planning body.

That would mean that the Secretary of State would be responsible for preparing the provisions of the regional spatial strategy without any input from local authorities and key stakeholders in the region through the regional chamber. It seems highly unlikely that that centralised approach is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If it is, it seems wrong to suppose that the regional planning system would benefit from it.

Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw recognition of a body as a regional planning body—a power that I would expect the Secretary of State to exercise only in exceptional circumstances. As hon. Members will know, since 1 April this year, the regional chamber in each region has been acting as the RPB. I would envisage regional chambers being derecognised as RPBs if they fail the key test of being inclusive. The need for the RPB to be representative of key regional interests is something that we have emphasised from the Green Paper onwards, because only then can it take a strategic regional view that takes account of the interests of all stakeholders in the region. The draft regulations set minimum criteria for recognition of an RPB: 30 per cent. of members must be drawn from a non-local authority background and have voting rights on planning matters. Where the RPB ceases to meet those criteria it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to withdraw recognition of the body.

In many ways, the Minister is being reassuring; but as in our discussion on a previous amendment, I am sure that he will be able to assure me that when there are elected regional assemblies, we can expect to see in the Bill that empowers them the ending of the Secretary of State's power to withdraw recognition of a regional planning body. There will then be a democratically accountable regional assembly to which the RPB will be accountable, rather than its being accountable to the Secretary of State, so that will surely be up to the elected regional assembly. Given the Minister's previous enthusiasm, I am sure that he will accede to that.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, but let me develop my argument first and then we shall come to that matter.

If the Secretary of State could not withdraw recognition of an RPB, we could be faced with an RPB that was wholly unrepresentative, and failing to take a strategic regional view. Derecognition is ultimately and properly a decision that should be made by the Secretary of State, but that will not happen in a vacuum, or without prior discussion with interested parties. Any unreasonable use of those powers could be subject to judicial review. We will not act in an arbitrary way. In the unlikely event of derecognition being required in the future, I undertake to publish the reasons for it at that time.

Now I come to the hon. Gentleman's point. Those powers are necessary for the situation as it will be when the Bill is enacted, but when elected regional assemblies are established the circumstances will be different. We propose that an elected regional assembly should have statutory responsibility for preparing and publishing the regional spatial strategy. If Parliament agrees to that, it will be for Parliament, not the Secretary of State, to withdraw that responsibility through primary legislation. The circumstances will be completely different.

I have just been looking at clause 11. Can the Minister explain who on an elected regional

body will represent the interests of, for example, people who are in the part of Yorkshire that now falls within the Cumbria county council area, but are also in a national park, and so will be dealt with by the Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly?

In answer to that—[Interruption.] I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who represents a Yorkshire constituency, for the comment from a sedentary position that no part of that national park is in Yorkshire. As a Yorkshire person, he ought to know. However, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has asked an interesting question. It would be preposterous for me to say that I know the immediate answer to it, but I will undertake to write to him.

I have made my observations about our expectations of the situation when there is an elected regional assembly. The power to withdraw recognition is simply the necessary and sensible flip side to the power of recognition. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.

We have had an interesting debate. When I dreamed up amendment No. 272—it was probably late at night—I had no idea that it would result in such a good debate. I thought that it would be buried under a large list of amendments. I apologise to the Committee for not having been ready to debate clause 2. Because the order of consideration had been changed, I was busy preparing for clause 40—but I am ready now.

We need to probe the Minister a little more. I seek your guidance, Mr. Hurst, as to whether I should do it now, and go slightly wide of the amendments, or whether you will allow a clause stand part debate.

I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate, but the final decision has not yet been taken. It will be taken subject to what is said during the present debate.

We need to examine how the regional assemblies are working prior to an affirmative referendum result. They are non-elected bodies. The White Paper ''Your region, your choice'' makes it perfectly clear that most will have between 30 and 40 members, so most are likely to have only 30 members. The Minister has already said that of those 30 members, 30 per cent. are to have a non-local authority background.

A county like Gloucestershire will be lucky if it has one or two representatives on the South West regional assembly. If the people of Gloucestershire want to dabble in the details to find out who those members are, they will discover that their members were indirectly elected by the county council. If they ask those members why, for instance, they have allocated a particular number of houses to the Cotswolds, the members will shelter under the resources and policy committee of the county council from which they receive their instructions.

The regional assemblies have no democratic accountability, yet through the RPB they will hand

down allocations of the number of houses—probably the most sensitive planning issue that we face. I wonder whether that might cause widespread unrest, particularly in the south of England, which is so densely populated. I acknowledge that many extra houses will be needed there—but the Minister relies on that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, the Bill makes a fundamental change. Such allocations used to be determined by county councils. In Gloucestershire there was a reasonable degree of consensus among the county councils and the six local authorities about where the county council's target should go. I cannot see that degree of consensus happening under the new regional structure, because it takes the decision making away from locally elected bodies.

If someone was dissatisfied with the targets handed out by his county council, he could easily find out who his local county councillor was. As I have already made clear, it will be much more difficult to find out who is his indirectly elected member on the regional assembly. Even when he has found out, that member will shelter under the relevant committee of the body that elected him. There must be an element of democratic deficit in the procedure that the Government are embarking upon.

May I emphasise a point that I consider to be integral? Even under the current system of county structure plans, there was always a degree of haggling and horse trading about how many houses each district council should have. No one is saying that that was not a controversial process; it often was. However, because most councillors came from the same county and were relatively familiar with the areas in question, they eventually managed to broker a workable arrangement, based partly on the advantage of their local knowledge. The process will now be written for regions on a much larger scale. Many of the people taking the decisions about who will end up with so many thousands of houses in a local authority area will have little knowledge of that place or of the issues faced by the people who live there. That is a potentially dangerous move and, as my hon. Friend points out, will only increase resentment about what will be seen as a remote imposition of houses on people who do not want them to be there.

My hon. Friend is building on what I was about to say. In practice, Gloucestershire will send its two members to the regional assembly committee that discusses the matter. They will be heavily outvoted, by 28 to two, they will go back to the county council committee that elected them, and it will ask, ''Why did you agree to this allocation of houses for Gloucestershire?'' and they will say, ''We are sorry but we were outvoted 28 to two; there was nothing we could do about it.''

I carefully wrote down the Minister's words. He said that the regional assemblies would be accountable to constituent bodies. They will not be accountable in the slightest. The numbers are such that those bodies will simply be outvoted.

Is the hon. Gentleman not confusing the numbers presently on the indirectly elected regional assemblies and those that would be elected to a regional assembly, which are not the same? One is much larger than the other. Secondly, could he explain why the procedure that he describes is fundamentally different from what occurred, for example, under Serplan, in the south-east, where a similarly indirectly elected body was responsible for the figures as they arose at a regional level and then percolated down?

I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says. In the current indirectly elected regional assemblies, there are more than 30—I accept that—but the numbers are not much greater, so the same comments apply. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, sotto voce from a sedentary position, responds immediately to the hon. Gentleman's second point by saying that the county council layer was there as a filter. While the region and the RPGs might have handed out a figure to the counties, the counties negotiated with the districts. A county is a fully elected, democratically accountable body. People can easily find out who their county councillor is and complain if they do not like what the county council has done. In Gloucestershire the system works reasonably well. The county council has a good dialogue with all six constituent local authorities, which, as the Minister made clear, have to implement the policy and decide exactly where the houses are to be sited.

In the context of the Bill, we are arguing about the difference between the current arrangement and the arrangement proposed by the Minister. However, one can think of a wealth of alternative arrangements that would be more democratic than either.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. However, we cannot consider that, as we are asked to consider only what the Government propose. That is a great pity. In that respect, it is a shame that the regions are set in stone and the regional boundaries cannot be re-examined. I am sure that by the time the Government have had a bloody nose and a few of the referendums have gone wrong, they will revert to looking at the boundaries. Then they might make them more acceptable.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh says, how the regional planning bodies draw up their regional spatial strategies is central to the Bill. If it is perceived that they are not taking full account of local people's wishes, we are in for a long period of dissatisfaction. I have listened carefully to the Minister. His arguments have been patient and cogent. However, in view of what he has said, I shall press amendment No. 272 to a vote.

I want to take up a couple of factual points. First, I should inform the hon. Member for Cotswold that the regional chamber in the south-west has 117 members, not 30, so there is an opportunity for a more extensive representation of Gloucestershire than he asserted. A regional planning body of that scope has capacity for representation of, at least, a greater degree of local information, knowledge and

sensitivity than he suggested. It is interesting that the likely size of an elected regional assembly in the same area will be 30 to 35, so democratic legitimacy may be gained at the expense of some intimate local knowledge.

A broader point is that in the past, under the previous Administration, the Secretary of State determined the level of housing provision in the county and unitary authorities with absolutely no opportunity for public examination of those allocations. The truth is that under our arrangements there will be an examination in public and it will be a considerably more open, accessible and transparent system than ever prevailed at the time when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Government.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

So it was wrong?

I would not have introduced the previous system, either.

I ask the Minister to consider seriously how the measure will work in practice so that local people do not feel aggrieved when they suddenly find a vast housing estate at their back door, which they knew nothing about.

Does the hon. Member for Cotswold want to withdraw amendment No. 271?

Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 272, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end, insert

'if a referendum has been held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and it has been voted in the affirmative under the provisions of that Act.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

Question put That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.