Localism Bill

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Parminter’s opposition to the clause standing part reflects not just the concern of her organisation but the concern felt outside the House about the provision. Of course I will withdraw the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement that the matter will be looked at again. I shall comment on one or two of the points that he has made. On his example of the parkway station, the reaction around me was, ““But that would enable development, and moreover it seems to be suggesting that economic growth is more important than the provision of extra housing””. It may be an interesting example but it has not quite yet convinced us. The Government put the clause in the Bill in order not to allow uncertainty to linger. However, guidance can be produced quite quickly. It can be issued on the day that the Act comes into force or it can precede it. Although I understand that the Government wanted to reassure people, there are other mechanisms for doing so. The Minister said that it was important to provide clarity. I hope that I have helped at any rate to suggest that the clause does quite the opposite—instead of clarity it provides more confusion and concern. We will ensure that my noble friend Lord Greaves is aware of the praise for his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it. Amendment 166WA withdrawn. Amendments 166X and 166Y not moved. Clause 124 agreed. Amendment 167 not moved.