The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has pretty much said it all, but I go further in seeking to take the clause out of the Bill altogether. It was explained in the Commons, but not why it is there. I am aware that the shelf life of the regional assemblies may be limited; if that is the case, it would be better to have the constitutional structure of changes for the full package together. I assume that this is not the package because the RPBs’ delegation is discretionary. I do not believe that the RDAs are the right bodies to take on planning functions, sponsored, I assume, by BERR. I would not say that their regeneration focus is necessarily inappropriate, but I do not think it is complete. Most importantly, they are appointed bodies and not representative of their communities.
At this stage, I am seeking an explanation regarding what I now remember was called by the Bill team ““transitional provisions”” on a list of groupings. I should have been suspicious of that when I saw it.
As a subsidiary question, what would the position be in London where there are different governmental arrangements, and in the London Development Agency, where the Mayor of London stands in the position of the Secretary of State vis-à-vis all the other development agencies?
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1000 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:48:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501720
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501720
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501720