UK Parliament / Open data

Localism Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on this point. Your Lordships’ House should give the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, great thanks for the diligence with which he has pursued this issue right from the start of the Bill. He has been consistent in challenging the unnecessary powers that have littered the Bill and, going through the list before us tonight, I do not have any problem with the amendments, with the possible exception of Amendment 204. As the noble Baroness says, planning has become, almost overnight, incredibly contentious. We are not now going to reach the substantive provisions until October and I think that it would be better to view them in the round and as a whole. It would be quite difficult to see the lack of guidance somewhere in the system relating to the duty to co-operate. It is a departure and a new issue in planning. It is the replacement of regional planning. It is very important that we get it right. I accept the noble Lord’s point that when an individual authority is going to consult it does not need guidance on that. Local authorities are well experienced in doing that, but this is guidance in the context of some new planning requirements and it would be premature to do away with the prospect of government having some guidance on the generality; not just bilateral consultations and relationships between authorities, but multilaterally and where the sub-region fits. The guidance that might flow from this could be really helpful in that regard. I do not wish to detract from the fantastic job the noble Lord has done in leading the charge on these issues. That is the only issue I take with the list that is before us.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c602-3 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Back to top