---

Planning Bill

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this lengthy debate of more than an hour. I will make one comment on the specific point of the noble Lord, Lord Best. My Amendment No. 24 exactly covers the example that he gave of the housing association that is not a charity. I started out by saying that I wanted ““clarity with charity”” and I return to that theme. I do not know whether I am being portrayed as an extremist: I prefer ““purist””. The interesting thing is that there is no difference between what I am proposing for what happens to land that is built upon by a charity, either for itself or for a charitable purpose, and what happens now. What is now being proposed will make things more difficult and complex. I have sympathy for the Minister, because she has a poor brief and a poor hand. It took her 26 minutes to try to explain this to us: it is very difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, used the word ““CIL-able””. I would alter that to ““CIL-ability””. I do not think, after 26 minutes, that anybody can say what the CIL-ability is of any specific development. That is the problem with the Bill. It is all going to be, ““Let’s hope we get something in the spring in regulations””. The aim today is to get clarity for charity. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. 16) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 157. [Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 not moved.]