---

Planning Bill

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, and some questions, or points, on others. I shall take them in sequence. On Amendment No. 136C, I find it startling that an authority had to be given permission to consult. This is rather different from taking some other, more technical, preparatory steps. If regulations are required for an authority to consult on anything, there is something deeply wrong. On the errors amendment, the noble Lord referred to the slip rule. Here, I speak partly to Amendment No. 137A. I am glad to have confirmation that this is not intended to deal with errors of judgment. I still find it difficult to understand what ““error”” means in this context. Will he point the House towards how it is restricted in the way that he has said? Amendment No. 137A says that examiners may, "““reconsider their decisions with a view to correcting errors””." The term ““reconsider”” suggests something rather wider. My Amendment No. 143ZA is completely the opposite of an amendment that the Government have tabled. I seek to take out from Clause 209(5), regarding collection, the words ““or require”” from the wording, "““The regulations may permit or require a charging authority or other public authority to collect CIL charged by another authority””." Regulations not just to permit the charging authority but to require another public authority to collect CIL charged by another authority go too far. Reference has been made to the position in London. I do not oppose the right of the mayor in London to levy CIL, but it raises an awful lot of issues about the mechanisms for collection, which I am not clear have been dealt with, and the administrative burden on the boroughs. There is work to be done with the London boroughs on how that will operate, and my amendment would mean that it would be a matter of negotiation between the boroughs and the mayor. Amendment No. 143 would consolidate the imposition on the boroughs. I do not think that is the right way to go, and the provision is opposed by London Councils, the umbrella group for the London boroughs. For instance, can the boroughs charge an administrative fee to meet the costs of collection and enforcement? This is not just a London issue. We would support co-operation and joint working but not top-down arrangements. I also oppose government Amendment No. 143A because it applies Clause 208(7)(c), which says that regulations may, "““require a charging authority to report on actual or expected charging, collection and application of CIL””." How can a non-charging authority report on expected charging applications—or indeed anything much? Government Amendment No. 145A would provide for a non-charging authority to be required to pay compensation under Clause 211, as has been explained. I query whether it is right if, for instance, the charge is wrongly applied by the charging authority, as distinct from the collecting authority, for the non-charging authority to be put in the frame for it. Under government Amendment No. 145D, regulations would require a charging authority to apply CIL for expenditure on compensation. Why ““require”” rather than ““permit””? Is it right for the Government to apply the ring-fencing that seemed to be implicit in what the Minister said? I have made a number of detailed comments on this, and this is the first point at which I am speaking on CIL. I have amendments that, in the way that these things are done, will come later, in which I will seek to persuade the House that this is not the point at which to proceed with CIL in the way that the Government wish. I will not rehearse those arguments now, but my taking part in the debates on the earlier groupings should not be regarded in any way as a signal that I am putting my hands up and resiling from the view that is inherent in the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 131. Trying to be constructive, although I might not have sounded it just now with that list of questions, I think that there are issues still to be pursued.