---

Localism Bill

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 148ZZCBA. It proposes to remove subsection (3)(b) of Clause 100, not, as my noble friend might think, in protest at the word ““ongoing””, although it is an entirely unnecessary word. Perhaps the clause should refer only to future costs. What costs would be in or out, or out or in, because of ““ongoing”” being in the clause? The word is totally unnecessary. However, I want to mention this matter because it is a breach in the whole principle of CIL, which should deal with the infrastructure costs that are caused, or need to be contributed to, as a result of the proposed development. Once you start to allow consideration of future costs, you will allow the whole CIL to be diverted to revenue and you will not get the infrastructure that you are supposed to get, and you will create a large deficit in the provision of infrastructure, because cash-strapped local councils will just hang on as long as they can without building the infrastructure. They will allow the roads to become more crowded and the schools to become fuller until the local authorities have to do something and spend the CIL money on current costs. This is the sort of budgeting for which we criticised the previous Administration. I am very surprised that we are contemplating it ourselves.