---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

With regard to taking out the reference to the Planning Act 2008, we would argue only if we thought that it was going to overtake this Bill. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. They have given me a great deal of material to take away and think about. I cannot find the fishing metaphor to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. He cited Docklands, as he has done on previous occasions, in support of the need for a mechanism to bring local authorities together. That had an ad hoc UDC specifically for it; that is different from the provisions here, which are more far-reaching. I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ford. I am so pleased that she is playing such a big part in this Bill, because everything she says is so thoughtful. That sounds so patronising, but I do not mean it that way. It certainly makes me much more confident in the integrity of the processes as they have been put into effect, which is not going to stop me questioning whether the powers are right, but it has been hugely helpful. On the skills matter and the shortage of planners, as my noble friend said, we all accept that. However, that does not lead me to the conclusion that powers should be transferred. It should be about making expertise available. I had not read Iain Wright’s comments in that light, perhaps because I had not picked up something that had gone before. It is not just numbers; it is expertise in dealing with difficult situations. I do not think that the way to deal with it is by making a constitutional change, if I can put it that way, because we are talking about democratic decisions. In the same way, that is the answer to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made or intended to make about local planning authorities having a shortage and having to go to consultants. The problem is not one which for us leads to this solution. On the cross-boundary issues and the whole issue of how one brings powers such as this into implementation, the point is that Milton Keynes was under a voluntary arrangement. The fact that the then Deputy Prime Minister vetoed other possible similar uses of the powers of English Partnerships leads me to the conclusion that we should continue questioning the clause, not accept it. In a similar way, almost the last point made by the Minister about the negative resolution being sufficient, because the situation is rare, is an even greater argument for an affirmative resolution. She talked a lot about designation being an aspect of partnership. It is clear to me that we will have to come back to quite a lot of this on Report to talk about how that partnership comes about. One aspect of partnership is the concurrent functions mentioned in Clause 14(5)(a). Can the noble Baroness write to me to explain the detail of those? I am not sure whether she was saying that they refer to different subsets and aspects of a planning application—for instance, materials and reserved matters—as opposed to those that follow the main application. Would those be handed back to the local planning authority? The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, had a similar problem with that notion and it would be helpful to understand in more detail just how that would operate. Finally, the Minister was absolutely right in her analysis of the words ““necessary”” and ““appropriate””—that was precisely what I aimed for in the amendment. This has been an immensely interesting debate and I apologise to the Committee that it has been long-winded. No, it was not long-winded; it has just been long. I have already started to draft amendments for Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]