Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

In the interests of speed, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to read Hansard in detail tomorrow. The amendments would restrict the ability of responsible regional authorities to have sub-regional policies, and I know that that is not what he is concerned about. As I understand it, there are no substantive differences from the 2004 Act, but I will take his invitation to reply in writing about that so he can be clear. We can then pick up the question he raises in Amendment 177C as well. With regard to Amendment 168B, the ability to specify which region should consider the issue in respect of a national park that crosses regional boundaries—and many do, such as the New Forest—is, frankly, common sense. National parks all need to be considered as a whole. It is wasteful for the south-east and the south-west region to duplicate work. A regional strategy that does not comply with national policy to take account of the level of resources available is going to lack all credibility, so it would be a waste of time to produce those amendments. That is a simple answer to the question I think he was raising, but I will write to him about the other issues and we will clarify that.