---

Planning Bill

My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening on this important Bill only at this late stage of Third Reading, but I have continued reservations on this charitable question. I strongly support Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 25. I shall speak briefly on those in a moment, but I have a problem with government Amendment No. 22. I much prefer Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. If Amendment No. 22 is carried, I do not, in my ignorance, see how it makes sense. Unless I have completely misinterpreted it, Clause 209(3) would then read: "““Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may provide that an exemption or reduction does not apply if specified conditions are satisfied””." That appears to be a contradiction in terms, although I may be quite wrong on this. I do not like the clause, but it would make more sense if it read, ““reduction does not apply unless specified””, and so on. Perhaps the officials could scribble a memo or two to the Minister to clarify that. I return to the other amendments. In Amendment No. 19—the ““must/may”” argument—I found it incongruous that subsection (1) has ““must”” while subsection (2) has only ““may””. On Amendment No. 21 I can do no better than support what my noble friend Lord Hodgson has said, while Amendment No. 25 is to an extent consequential on Amendment No. 21. I urge the Minister to look again at the whole question of charitable status, particularly for those who are building and renovating buildings that are themselves in the charitable sector.