---

Planning Bill

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments Nos. 136AC to 136AJ. The best way to tackle this is to try and grasp what Amendment No. 136AA says. Proposed new subsection (1)(a) talks about a relevant charity. This is then defined in proposed new subsection (4). I do not understand ““relevant””. Can the noble Baroness define an irrelevant charity? If there is an irrelevant charity, I would like to know what it is. A charity is a charity, so why ““relevant””? I am concerned as to whether anything has slipped out because of ““relevant”” being placed there. Proposed new subsection (1)(b) is about charitable purpose. That is clearly about those who have not taken the trouble or felt the need to register as a charity, but it covers what they wish to do. Proposed new subsection (2) is where the important concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, come in as to the position with what we might describe as investment property or investment land. Is proposed new subsection (2) saying that if it is a case of investment property or land, there is the opportunity for a reduction but not a requirement? Is that what that is about? Finally, because it is late, I turn to proposed new subsection (3). It has to go. This really is a case of two steps forward and three back. Proposed new subsection (1) says: "““CIL regulations must provide for an exemption””." That is a very positive thing to say to the charities. Then proposed new subsection (3) says, "““that an exemption or reduction applies only if specified conditions are satisfied””." That is a very negative thing for charities. Where is the clarity in this? Either charities are not going to be paying CIL or they are. ““Must provide an exemption”” ought to be as clear as clear can be. Then lo and behold, somebody slips in proposed new subsection (3) and takes that clarity away again. That wants to be crossed out—got rid of.