Yes, my Lords—I am very clear about that as well. Having heard the Minister reply to the previous group of amendments and to the Clause 132
stuff on the changes to Section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, I am prepared to come to the view that the new Section 27 will be better than the old one, for the reasons the Minister set out previously. I understand those arguments; I am really saying that I would rather that it was not there at all. However, given that it is replacing the previous one, I can understand that having a more targeted approach may be better. I am concerned that it may result in more interventions, because being more specific they will be easier to make, but we will find that out in due course.
As far as this group of amendments is concerned, I do not think that the Minister addressed my concerns. If the Secretary of State is going to intervene and take over the production of whatever it is—the local plan as a whole or particular parts of it—then he has to find a way of doing so. One can imagine a number of different ways that he might find. He will have to find some people to do it. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has the personal resources or the ministerial resources to do it himself. He could use the Planning Inspectorate to do it. I do not believe that it has any spare capacity. Using another local authority might be an answer.
7 pm
I can understand the idea that since combined authorities exist, they could be used. The combined authority is not, in general, going to be a planning authority—it may or may not—so I do not know from where it would get the resources, but that is a different matter. Assuming that it does have the resources and can take over, the objection is that a combined authority is based on the idea of a co-operative group. It is not a Mayor of London set up by statute to tell the boroughs what to do wherever he can do that. It is a co-operative group set up voluntarily between a series of different authorities—it is 11 in Greater Manchester and however many in Lancashire, 15 I think including the county—working together on projects jointly for the benefit of their area. Given the whole idea, it will work only if the members of the combined authority respect each other, work on the basis of equality and do so because they believe that it is the best way forward.
If the Secretary of State comes along and invites the combined authority to take over the function of just one of those councils, we all know how these things work: “inviting” probably means instructing. I do not think that a combined authority would find it easy to refuse it, but perhaps it would. Having the Secretary of State imposing or directing from the top that the combined authority consisting of all the councils has to take over the functions of one of those councils against its wishes is not a sensible way to make that combined authority succeed.
My concerns about this amendment are not about the process of planning. They are not about the need to get the plans done, which we all accept we have to do. We all accept that it has been difficult in many areas but it has to happen. My concerns are about the way in which it is done and the damage that it might do to relationships between local authorities in a particular area. That is the issue that I ask the Minister to go away, think about and see whether what I am
saying is complete nonsense or, as I think, has much validity. Having said that and living in hope that it will cause a bit of thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.