---

Planning Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. On all sides, this has been a very thoughtful debate. I know that all noble Lords from different perspectives take the issues very seriously. I do not believe that our approach would put in peril the hard work that has been done. Our intention is not to dispose of it, but to give the opportunity to build on it. I have no problem in squaring this with my honourable friend Dan Rogerson, the Member for North Cornwall. I discussed it with him and he is quite right about enabling local communities to achieve what they want, but unless the mechanisms work, that ambition will not be fulfilled through this route, so we are entirely at one. As far as concerns not introducing the regulations before October 2009, this rather proves my point, or goes towards proving it. That point is not about seeking further primary legislation, but about the workability of what will both underpin and follow the primary legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, described these amendments as being ““to halt and think again””. They are not: they are ““to pause and think more””. That is an important distinction. I accept what she says about how keen many local authorities are to achieve infrastructure through this route. However, what is most important is to get it right, even if that is achieved at the price of, in the scheme of things, a relatively short delay. The noble Baroness had no need to apologise for missing the start of what I said: neither she nor her distinguished visitors missed anything technical. The question was, ““What do we want? CIL. When do we want it? When we are completely satisfied that it will work””. I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 131) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 76. Clause 200 [The charge]: [Amendment No. 132 not moved.]