IPP Sentences
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recommendations in the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform entitled Ending the detention of people on IPP sentences: expert recommendations, published in June.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
This Government welcome and share the Howard League’s determination to support those serving the IPP sentence, but we cannot take any steps that would put the public at risk. For that reason, we remain firmly of the view that the Parole Board must determine that a prisoner serving the IPP sentence is safe to be released, having regard to the statutory release test, and that the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare offenders for release. The report includes a range of additional, complex recommendations which we are exploring in full.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the new Justice Secretary, David Lammy, wrote to a constituent in 2021:
“As IPP prisoners spend longer and longer in prison without any prospect of release, their mental health continues to decline, and they start to display behavioural traits which makes their release even less likely”.
So he gets it. The Howard League report, which has a foreword by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, makes innovative recommendations as to how the residual prisoners—those who have never been released; there are about 1,000 of them—could make progress through the Parole Board systems. Will the noble Lord agree to discuss this with his new colleague and to make a formal response to the Howard League report, ideally in writing?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister, my new boss, shares my determination to do all we can for those serving IPP sentences and their families while ensuring that we do not take any steps that put the public at risk. Having visited prisons for over 20 years and met many IPP prisoners, I completely agree that a number of them need support with their mental health. That is why the IPP action plan is the right place to support those people, especially as we updated it on 17 July, and the progression panels with senior psychiatrists are already making a difference. In the last year, 154 IPPs have been released who have never been released before. But we have a lot more to do, and I will write to the noble Lord in due course.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House of how many of these prisoners are now refusing to engage with the processes required to satisfy the Parole Board’s current tests for release because they have lost confidence in the system? If they have, is it not time to think again?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Parole Board is the best way to determine whether someone’s risk is sufficient to be managed in the community. It is important that when IPP prisoners go in front of the Parole Board, they are prepared in a way to have a successful release. That is why the IPP action plan is the right way to go, and why we are seeing significant increases in the number of people released and rereleased. We need to make sure that the IPP action plan works but also—this is one of the things I am doing for most of my days—that our prisons are good prisons that rehabilitate people and that when they leave, they do not come back.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, can I commend the Minister’s approach? There are two sides to this story. One of them is obviously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the difficulties faced by people who are indefinitely detained, but the other, which the Minister has, thankfully, mentioned every time he has had to speak on this issue, is the interests of the public and public safety. Therefore, the action plan, which tries to balance those two interests, is exactly the right way to approach this.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments. What is important is that the Parole Board is doing a fantastic job; its staff are fantastic public servants. The release decisions are steady: 45% of hearings over the past five years have led to a positive release. The reason why I think that this is going in the right direction is that these people are increasingly complex individuals. That is why the IPP action plan is working; we need to keep the pressure on. One thing that I bring from my experience of running a business is improving everything, having targets, having real focus and holding people to account.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister well knows, much of the pressure on our prisons, including on IPP prisoners, comes from the constant probationary pressing of the panic recall button. I know that the Minister’s folder will say, “Don’t say anything negative about probation”, but might he consider something in the Sentencing Bill that allows the power of recall to rest with the courts and not with probation officers, who, as we discovered on Thursday in HMP Belmarsh, are sending people back with such excessive frequency that it is unjust?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Sentencing Bill implements the independent sentencing review. IPPs were not in scope of that review because it focused on sentences that are still on the statute books. I do not want to repeat myself, but the IPP action plan is the best way to prepare those people for release. I am really pleased that the noble Lord and others enjoyed the visit to HMP Belmarsh on Thursday; we had a really good opportunity to meet a number of prisoners, including an IPP prisoner.
What is also important, as the noble Lord mentioned, is our Probation Service. It is where the heaving lifting in the justice system is done, which is why I am proud that we are increasing the funding for probation by £700 million—a 45% increase.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the current system is failing both prisoners and the public. It keeps prisoners in indefinite limbo, as we saw on our visit to HMP Belmarsh last week. It offers no clear route to safer release. My question is specific: what is wrong with the proposal for a two-year conditional release process?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for coming along on Thursday. The Parole Board is the best body to decide who is safe to be released, because public protection is our priority. If we went with the Howard League’s suggestion, it would mean people being released without their risk being assessed, which is not something that we are prepared to do.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
Sorry—a lot of us are very keen to speak up on this matter.
The six recommendations in the report are a brilliant way to ensure that IPP prisoners can be looked after properly and released safely. One recommendation that particularly struck me was one that I had moved previously: recommendation 4, which recommended that the aftercare duty provided under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act be extended to all ex-IPP prisoners. If someone happens to be sectioned under that section, many safe and timely ways to give additional help to high-needs individuals are available so that they can be released safely and remain in the community. Why not give the rest of them the same multiagency support as they would have received had they been incarcerated in a mental hospital?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We have 233 IPP prisoners in secure mental health hospitals. From having been to the hospitals and met the individuals, I know that the care that they get from our nursing professionals is exceptional. It is also important that when they come back into the prison system, they have a soft landing and not a hard landing. That is an area that I am working on as we speak. Also important is that when people leave prison, they go to an approved premises. We have a trial going on where we are extending them going there from 12 to 16 weeks but also having a dedicated individual psychologist to support them. That is already having gains now.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the current recall system for IPP offenders is confused, confusing, overly bureaucratic and irrational, and that it creates injustice and just increases the number of mentally ill people and those without any hope in custody? Would he please accelerate his efforts to mend it?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question, and for the work that he and the noble and learned Lord Thomas have done on this area. It is really important, and the focus has been very helpful. Already, the documents are clearer and more focused. Senior managers now oversee all recall decisions. From 3 November this year, we are extending the post-recall timeframes to improve planning and decision-making. That is thanks to Shirley Debono, who has helped us on that as well. The multidisciplinary progression panels are the way to do this, because we need to make sure that everybody who is in prison on an IPP sentence has hope, engages with the action plan, gets out and stays out.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why IPP prisoners have to go to such lengths to prove that they are safe to leave custody before being released, while others in prison for similar offences do not? Does he agree that this difference in treatment is a further injustice against IPP prisoners, and that it is vital and urgent that we make progress in this area?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The Parole Board are the experts in deciding who is safe to be released. The release tests that it has are robust and fair, but we need to make sure that when people are in front of it, they are in a really good position to be released and released safely.
Online Safety Act 2023: Virtual Private Networks
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increased use of virtual private networks since the implementation of age verification requirements for access to primary priority content under the Online Safety Act 2023.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government and Ofcom are monitoring the potential impact of circumvention techniques on the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act, especially since the child safety duties came into effect in July 2025. Services promoting VPN use to bypass age checks could face enforcement action. These duties represent a major milestone in protecting children online, making it harder for children to access harmful content. We must allow sufficient time for these measures to embed before considering further action.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, there are concerns and some misinformation circulating about VPNs and other aspects of the Act. In this light, is the Minister confident that the Act is still fit for purpose, and that platforms have a clear existing responsibility to prevent children bypassing safety protections? Does all this not mean that Parliament needs an early chance at post-legislative scrutiny of the implementation and operation of the Act to ensure, in particular, that it fulfils its aims of keeping users, particularly children, safe online while preserving free speech for adults?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act places very clear duties on platforms to protect children, including tackling methods of circumvention. The use of VPNs to bypass safeguards is a known risk, and platforms must act decisively. They are already required to assess such risks and implement proportionate measures. Ofcom will hold platforms to account. The Act requires Ofcom to produce and publish a report assessing how effective the use of age assurance has been and whether there are factors that prevented or hindered the effective use of age assurance. These will be published by June 2026.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister support calls for app stores not to provide VPNs to children in this country?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, many people use VPNs for entirely legitimate purposes. Their use does not negate the protections of the Online Safety Act, particularly when it comes to keeping children safe online. We have seen a significant increase in the use of age-verification tools as UK users attempt to access age-restricted content. Since the child safety duties came into force, the Age Verification Providers Association has reported an additional 5 million age checks being carried out each day in the initial period. The Act is already driving real change and stronger protections for children.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, what estimate have the Government made since the implementation of these new regulations of the number of additional VPNs that are being taken up by users in the United Kingdom? If a figure is not immediately available, will the noble Lord write to me and let the House know?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, online providers now have a legal duty to protect children from harmful content. As I said earlier, VPNs are here to stay, and people use VPNs for entirely legitimate purposes. It does not negate the protections which the Online Safety Act has put in place. Those duties prevent children accessing the most dangerous material online, such as pornography and content promoting self-harm or eating disorders. They also protect children from other harmful content, including bullying, abuse or material that encourages dangerous stunts or risky behaviour. The Government will hold services to account. The era of platforms turning a blind eye to the risks that children face online is over.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, while the introduction of age checking has increased the use of VPNs, we must not automatically assume that the increase is entirely attributable to under-18s. On the contrary, Ofcom’s research suggests that only one in 10 VPN users is a child. The vast majority of children are benefiting from the protection from unwanted and unasked-for pornography that has hitherto been sent to them routinely.
However, it is likely that at least some of the increased use of VPNs by adults is the result of a legitimate concern that the introduction of age checks has not been accompanied by a rigorous focus on user privacy. Until privacy is central to Ofcom’s concern, it will always meet resistance to age checking. How many services have been referred by Ofcom to the ICO for failing to uphold users’ privacy rights while performing age checks? If the Minister does not have that information, will he commit to asking Ofcom to provide it and write to noble Lords who have an interest?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, Ofcom has clear enforcement powers against platforms that fail to implement highly effective age assurance. This includes issuing fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue, whichever is greater. Ofcom is already using these powers, with investigations opened into at least 47 sites and apps that are suspected of non-compliance.
I will provide the noble Baroness the figures. On false communication offences, Ofcom has proceeded against 17 cases, of which 14 were convicted and sentenced. On the offence of threatening communication, Ofcom has taken action in 462 cases, of which 294 were convicted and 239 were sentenced. Platforms have legal duties under the Online Safety Act. If they fall short, particularly in protecting children, they will face serious consequences. We will not allow safety standards to be ignored.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the head of the Free Speech Union. As I am sure the—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches. Please make up your minds about which noble Lord will ask a question.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I was interested to read comments from Republican politicians over the weekend calling out the role of social media in polluting political discourse, particularly after the horrific events in America last week. Can we please recognise that we are pioneers in this country in terms of regulating platforms and that Ofcom is doing a terrific job? While parliamentary oversight is very important, can we please allow Ofcom the time to implement this very complex legislation and find time to applaud the effective job that it is doing?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, online safety regulation is a priority not only for this Government but for Governments around the world. A number of democratic nations are introducing legislation to better protect users from serious online harm, including child sexual abuse, terrorist content and misinformation. The UK’s approach is proportionate, transparent and rooted in the rule of law.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, two of the duties in the Online Safety Act that are designed to safeguard free speech are those imposed on category 1 providers to not remove content of democratic importance and journalistic content. But those duties come into force only once Ofcom has drawn up a list of the category 1 providers and registered them. But Ofcom has not done that yet, which has led, I believe, to over-removal of content of democratic importance and journalistic content by the large social media platforms. Can the Minister tell us when Ofcom is likely to designate providers as category 1 so that those duties come into force and free speech is better protected?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has a proud and enduring tradition of free speech, and we remain fully committed to protecting it as a fundamental human right. In respect of the noble Lord’s question, I will have to write to him as to when Ofcom will make the classification. The Online Safety Act is not about censoring lawful opinions or stifling debate. Its purpose is to tackle illegal content and to ensure that children are better protected online. It does not and will not restrict lawful political speech or limit adults from accessing or posting content that is legal, even if others may find it offensive. Free speech in the UK is not only alive, it is safeguarded.
Lord Sugar (CB)
My Lords, on a lighter note, I, like most noble Lords here, am a BBC licence fee payer. I get very frustrated that I am unable to access the content of, for example, BBC iPlayer and have resorted to using VPN services to do so. The BBC has gone out of its way to block the use of VPNs, but can the Minister have a word with it to allow us to log in using our details? I recognise that some of the content there is not for broadcast outside the UK, but nevertheless it has the technology to work out how to deal with that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that point, and I will speak to my colleagues in DCMS accordingly.
Plastic Pollution
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the environment in the United Kingdom of the failure to reach agreement on a Global Plastics Treaty, and what immediate steps they are taking to tackle plastic pollution in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK supports an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and I am very disappointed that no agreement has been reached. Plastic pollution is an urgent issue, with amounts of plastic entering the ocean set to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. The Government therefore remain committed to reaching an agreement on global action. Domestically, we have taken significant steps towards a circular economy for plastics and will publish the circular economy strategy for England this autumn.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I take this opportunity to congratulate successive Governments on their efforts to reach agreement for a global plastic pollution treaty. What are this Government doing to reduce the use of plastics in the economy, mindful of the fact that the Government set up a Circular Economy Taskforce in March, one of the top five priorities of which was reducing the use of plastics? How often has the task force met and what progress has it made to reduce the use of plastics, so that we can at least control our own use in the absence of a global treaty?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are taking a number of steps domestically to tackle plastic pollution. First, we have banned the supply of single-use vapes which, when littered, can introduce plastic, among other substances, into the environment. We are also working with the devolved Governments to bring forward a ban across the UK on wet wipes that contain plastic. The collection of packaging reforms that we have brought in is the first step in the transition to the circular economy for all materials, including plastic. For example, the deposit return scheme includes plastic drinks containers. We have also extended producer responsibility for packaging, so that producers are incentivised to consider reducing the packaging that they use. Increasing the circularity of the plastic sector will reduce the need to produce virgin materials, which will reduce the plastic pollution associated with that. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the number of times that the task force has met.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, beyond health deception, cigarette filters are the single most-littered item on the planet. They are an environmental disaster: they do not biodegrade but break down into microplastics, polluting our rivers and oceans. Banning them would remove the illusion of safety from filtered cigarettes, at the same time preventing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste. If we can ban plastic straws, surely we can ban cigarette filters.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend asks an interesting question. According to Defra’s work, we know that cigarette butts are the most-littered item. People do not tend to notice them, because they are very small, but they cause enormous damage through pollution, particularly because of the chemicals that get into water systems. I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has brought it into public perception more that you should not just chuck cigarette butts away; they can cause huge damage. We are going to monitor this further, working with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, but clearly the best thing is for people to give up smoking in the first place.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with retailers and manufacturers about stopping the use of plastic in chocolate selection boxes for Christmas? It will not be long before they are stacked up in supermarkets again, demonstrating the mountains of unnecessary single-use plastic being used.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We talk regularly to supermarkets and other retailers, plus organisations that actually package the goods in the first place. We need to reduce the amount of damaging packaging that goes into our environment because, as I have said before, recycling is great—we encourage it—but it is better if do not need it in the first place or if we can reduce the need for recycling. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: Christmas chocolate boxes are a good example of overpackaging, but Easter eggs are another. We need to work with the industry to reduce this packaging in the first place.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, when countries fail to reach a global agreement, often you find a coalition of the willing who will sign a plurilateral agreement and perhaps allow other countries to join later. Have the Government thought about signing a plurilateral treaty or agreement on the use of plastics, which other countries can join later?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Our ambition at the moment is to try to get the global treaty that we have been pressing for. We believe that the more countries that we can bring into that treaty, including those that produce the plastics and the materials for them, the more likely we are to have a larger global impact. But we are considering all options, because we need to move forward in this space.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the pros and cons of requiring road builders to replace some of the fossil fuel-based bitumen with plastic pellets?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
At the moment, I am not aware of Defra having had such conversations. It may be that the Department for Transport has, so I will go back to my department, ask for more information on this subject and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, what efforts are the Government making to promote more switching to cost-effective, reusable or non-plastic, biodegradable packaging products to reduce the cost burden on industry and consumers of waste recycling and reduction?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The UK works very much with other authorities, the devolved Administrations and other countries on how we can do exactly that. As I said, it is all very well to recycle, but we need to reduce the amount of plastic in the first place because, even when things are recycled, that plastic is still in the system. So, we will continue with our efforts to do just that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the failure of the negotiations was a great disappointment. Is it now the view of the Government that that is the end of the main story, that opposition is so entrenched that there is no serious prospect of progress on the main issue and that, therefore, we will have to have minor, lesser or subsidiary agreements between different parties?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we are still working towards getting the treaty that we want. We think it will have the biggest impact, which is why we want to try to achieve that. The UK has played a leading role throughout the negotiations. We are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, and we want to continue with that high ambition. We have worked with other countries. We are supporting developing countries and are trying to bring other countries on board to gain the really big prize that we need.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister was at the Dispatch Box answering Questions on plastics last week, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew attention to the extraordinarily high levels of plastics involved in home deliveries from supermarkets. The Minister said that they met regularly with supermarkets to discuss this matter. Can she please press the supermarkets far harder? You can stand at any supermarket vegetable section and see that the vast majority of vegetables and fruit are wrapped unnecessarily in plastics. There are weighing machines at every checkout and they should be the way to restrain the use of plastics by supermarkets.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can confirm to the noble Lord that I have had exactly those sorts of conversations with some supermarkets. There are certain items that they say they need to wrap in plastic—cucumbers, for example. I am waiting to be convinced as to the need for everything to be wrapped, but I am happy to work with and listen to supermarkets. I was very frustrated the other week when I found a swede wrapped in plastic, which I thought was completely and utterly unnecessary.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as someone who campaigned on the need to reduce the use of plastics, I was devastated by the collapse of the treaty negotiations. When does the Minister think they will start again? What are the milestones for that? How can we get this international action finished? That is what is necessary, because this is a pollution problem right around the world.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her support and for continuing to press for this. As she said, it is the thing that will make the biggest difference. As she is aware, the session was adjourned. It was agreed that it would reconvene, but the place and time are yet to be confirmed.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s approach of seeking international agreement. There seems to me no point in us pursuing something on our own and showing leadership if no one is following.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. If we are genuinely to make real progress in reducing the amount of plastic pollution, including the tiny microplastics that we are finding everywhere, we have to work globally and with countries such as Saudi Arabia that we need to bring on board if we are to make a real difference.
Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: Cost Caps for Landlords
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask His Majesty’s Government why the cost caps proposed for landlords in the social and private rented sectors to meet the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards are different.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest in the private rented sector, with rented cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, all renters deserve warm and safe homes. Both consultations on the minimum energy efficiency standards for private and social rented homes sought views on the options of a £10,000 and £15,000 maximum spend requirement. During the consultation, we engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders to understand the potential impact of the policy and how we can ensure that requirements are fair and proportionate for landlords and tenants. The difference between the proposals reflects the different starting positions of the sectors and the need to support social landlords to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Final decisions have not yet been taken. We will consider responses to both consultations to ensure that an appropriate figure is set for each tenure.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. Surely the guiding principle should be that tenants in the social rented sector should have the same level of investment in their properties as those in the private sector. I think that is an important principle. The Government are proposing to increase the current cap from £3,500 to £15,000, and to achieve this requires a fair and workable funding model. Given this, will the Government consider a graduated cap on the amount landlords would be expected to spend to meet the planned energy efficiency standards, taking into account factors such as the rental value of the property, its location, its age and its heritage? With such a balanced approach, I think we will see landlords staying in the private sector, but without it we may see sales.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Obviously, there is clear value in common standards. The reason we consulted on a different level for the social housing sector was twofold: to provide finance for social housing delivery and due to the fact that social housing landlords can often achieve an economy of scale in dealing with their properties. As I said, no decisions have been taken yet. To respond to the noble Lord’s point on financing, there were a number of proposals in the consultation about managing the cost burden on private landlords, including a cap on the maximum investment required per property, an affordability exemption and a range of other exemptions for circumstances in which upgrades may not be feasible or appropriate, such as in the case of traditionally constructed and heritage buildings.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there is a significant number of homes that remain hard to decarbonise for which the interventions required to meet energy efficiency standards can be extremely costly. In the social housing sector, while the majority of housing associations are on track to meet EER C by 2030, for some they can meet it only by selling homes, unless there is a cost cap. I note what my noble friend said in her reply, but I urge her to say a little more about whether the Government plan to implement the £10,000 spend exemption for MEES for the social rented sector, either in a time-limited way or as a permanent exemption.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the points the noble Baroness is making. That is one of the reasons why we consulted on two different levels. The consultation for the implementation of MEES would require social homes to have energy performance certificates at rating C or equivalent by 2030. There is currently no minimum energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector. Some 72% of social rented homes are already at EPC bands A to C. More than 600,000 social homes are in fuel poverty, so improving the energy efficiency of social homes will help reduce energy bills and tackle fuel poverty. This is important. Having gone through the debate on Awaab’s law the other day, I know it is vital that social homes are brought up to the standards we all want to see.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
That is very generous of the noble Baroness. Further to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has the Minister seen a survey by the National Residential Landlords Association indicating that 31% of private landlords are planning to leave the market in the near future, aggravating the existing shortage? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage long-term institutional investment by institutions—insurance companies and pension funds—to remedy this shortage?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords and believe that they must enjoy robust grounds for possession and so on, but there is good reason for them to think about these reforms. They have nothing to fear from our reforms. The sector has doubled in size since the early 2000s. There is no evidence of exodus since reform has been put on the table. Our proposals make sure that landlords have the confidence and support that they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector. However, we are determined to level the playing field between landlords and private tenants by providing the latter with greater security. The noble Lord mentioned institutional investment. There is already institutional investment taking place through our major banking organisations to support private landlords to do the work that they need to do. That goes alongside a range of government funding, which will help with the differences that we all want to see.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Thanks to my generosity, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has covered half of my question, so I will make a quick switch. The minimum energy efficiency standards consultation made no mention of heat networks, which are mainly used by the social housing sector. Many are inefficient, old and very expensive to upgrade. What assessment has been made of the impact of these proposals on the viability of heat networks? As some are privately owned, how can this sector be responsible for improvements of networks that it does not own?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is a very important question for those tenants who find themselves on heat networks. The noble Baroness is right to point to the fact that, while some of them have been maintained well and looked after, for others that is not so much so. We have allocated £1.29 billion of funding from the warm homes plan specifically to support energy efficiency improvements in social homes as part of wave 3 of the warm homes social housing fund. We are generally very much in favour of heat networks, and I hope that those organisations that operate heat networks will approach the department for that funding. The funding will deliver support to 144 projects across England. I hope that will provide some financial support for those organisations facing that dilemma.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we agree that it is desirable to have energy-efficient homes but for many older and, in particular, listed homes this can be difficult. The Government are lifting the cap for private rental landlords to meet the EPC C rating by 2030 from £3,500 to £15,000. Already, this is a potentially significant burden on landlords. Many might consider it no longer worthwhile and seek to sell, meaning fewer desperately needed rental homes. Given this change, what assurance can the Minister give to landlords that the cap will not be increased further and that the requirement will not go beyond the EPC C rating?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I made it clear in my earlier answer that no decisions have been taken yet. We will report on the outcome of the consultation. We consulted on a number of proposals to manage the cost burden, including a cap on the maximum investment required per property, which I think is what the noble Lord was getting at, and the other exemptions that may not be feasible or appropriate, including heritage buildings, for which I understand it might be difficult in those circumstances. We have a number of avenues of support for landlords to improve their properties. The boiler upgrade scheme offers £7,500 off the cost of a heat pump. There is the warm homes local grant, which will fund measures such as insulation and solar panels for eligible low-income households. We are doing what we can to support private landlords with a package of measures that will help them to introduce safe and warm homes.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, given the announcement in the comprehensive spending review of £39 billion in grant funding to boost social and affordable housing, can my noble friend the Minister assure me that all councils will be required to ensure that all new housing stock is built to meet the highest standards of energy efficiency, and that her department has a clear plan to implement this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend touches on an important point. There are two developments coming forward: one is a revision of the decent homes standard and the other is the future homes standard, which will be published shortly. We have confirmed the new 10-year £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes that she referred to, and our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, at least 60% of those for social rent. We of course want to make sure that those homes do not need any retrofitting once they are built, so they will be built to the highest standards and in accordance with both the decent homes standard and the future homes standard.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 25 and 26 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 8 September.
Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.
Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 and 30 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 and 10 September.
Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 June be approved.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 15th September 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-VII(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (15 Sep 2025)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to remind noble Lords that we have a large number of groups on this Bill to get through today. While this is Committee, I rise to remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companian at paragraph 8.81 on speeches at the amending stages of Bills:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have many important contributions from all sides of the Committee, parts of our recent debates have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion, and brief.
Amendment 185N
Earl Russell
“Energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of this Act coming into force, prepare and publish a National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy for the purposes of informing planning policy and guiding the development of artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure under this Act, in so far as it relates to energy consumption.(2) For the purposes of this section, “artificial intelligence and technology-related infrastructure” includes, but is not limited to—(a) data centres,(b) high-performance computing facilities,(c) server farms,(d) AI research, training, and testing facilities, and(e) any other installations primarily designed to support AI and large-scale digital processing.(3) The purpose of the strategy is to—(a) balance the energy demands of artificial intelligence against the energy efficiencies enabled by artificial intelligence,(b) achieve a national objective of ensuring that AI energy use is better than carbon neutral before 2030, and(c) support the integration of AI-enabled efficiencies into national energy planning.(4) The projected energy consumption of a proposed development and its contribution to national energy efficiencies, as set out in the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, shall be treated as material planning considerations.(5) An application for planning permission relating to such infrastructure must be accompanied by an assessment covering—(a) the expected level of energy demand arising from the development,(b) proposed measures to improve the energy efficiency of the development, and(c) proposed steps to reduce or mitigate the impact of energy consumption on local and national energy supply. (6) In determining an application to which this section applies, a planning authority must have regard to—(a) the extent to which the development will utilise renewable or other low-carbon sources of energy, and(b) the consistency of the development with the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy.(7) The Secretary of State must issue guidance specifying minimum energy efficiency standards for such infrastructure.(8) Planning authorities must have regard to guidance issued under subsection (7) in exercising their functions under the Planning Acts.(9) Planning conditions attached to permissions under this section must include local arrangements enabling independent AI-related energy sources to provide surplus capacity to the national grid at times of surplus or at times of national demand, including requirements for grid-balancing.(10) The Secretary of State must, not later than 18 months after the publication of the National AI Energy Efficiency Strategy, and every three years thereafter, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—(a) the progress made in reducing the energy consumption of AI and technology-related infrastructure,(b) the contribution of such infrastructure to national energy efficiencies,(c) the effectiveness of planning conditions imposed under this section, and(d) whether additional measures are required to meet the objectives set out in subsection (3)(b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make the energy use and efficiency of AI-related infrastructure a statutory planning consideration supported by a national strategy, guidance, and reporting duties.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group of amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy I will move my Amendment 185N and speak also to Amendment 185P. The simple truth is that AI’s energy and water demands are outpacing our development of policies to regulate AI’s energy and water usage. AI’s expected energy usage is due to go up from 7 terawatt hours to 62 terawatt hours by 2050, which is enough to power 27 million homes. Some estimate that it could go up to 71 terawatt hours by 2050. AI is exceptionally power-hungry just at the pinch point when we are desperately trying to reach clean power.
Against this background, our overall electricity demand is set to double by 2050. SMRs will help, but we should note that they will not come online until the mid-2030s. Meanwhile, many big tech companies are rowing back from their clean energy targets; Google is one example. This Bill is notably silent on AI, meaning that planning frameworks lack explicit provisions to assess or moderate the substantial energy and water demands of AI. I believe that, with the right legislation, we can make provision to require that AI is used for public good by ensuring that its power is also applied to finding ways we can drive national energy savings and efficiencies. AI is a powerful tool used to drive energy efficiencies, for example by enhancing the electricity grid, providing stability and efficiency and improving forecasting and integrations of variable amounts of new renewable energy generation and unlocking substantial transmission capacity savings without the need for new power lines.
More widely, AI can be used to heat and cool our buildings, improve our transport sector and to improve any number of industrial processes requiring large amounts of energy. So there is potential for huge savings by employing AI. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a national AI energy efficiency strategy within 18 months. This would establish projections of energy use as material planning considerations and mandate developers to account for both supply and efficiency measures in their applications. The measure also aims to ensure that surplus energy resources from data centres can be fed back into the national grid at times of energy need.
Amendment 185P also looks at the significant issue of projected water usage by AI. A typical data centre can use as much water as 100,000 homes. At present, 8.5 million homes in the UK are subject to hosepipe bans. Seven out of 17 regions in England are expected to have water stress by 2030 and 12 by 2040. The shortfall between sustainable water supplies and expected demand is projected by Defra to be nearly 5 billion litres per day by 2050. This represents more than one-third of the 14 million litres we use daily. Facing a warmer world, it is essential that national policy demands a clear water efficiency strategy, enforces targets for alternative cooling technologies and ensures that planning authorities rigorously assess water availability and resilience before consenting to new developments.
I absolutely welcome the relatively newly established AI Energy Council and the work being done but, to date, this is an evolving project without any clear outcomes. Will the Government, at the very least, mandate that the AI Energy Council formulates clear policies and formally reports on these matters within a set timeframe? I also ask the Government to give a clear commitment to an energy and water efficiency strategy for AI and to develop a national energy policy statement on AI energy use.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He referred to two different utilities. Energy should, in effect, be unlimited in the resource available, but it is concerning to a number of communities that, suddenly, energy projects, substations and so on are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside them from solar farms and for other significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure. As a consequence, what proportion of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3a land is now being taken up with planning applications, due to not only solar farms but all the AI-related infrastructure to which the amendments refer? I do not know whether the Minister has that information; if not, I would be grateful if she could write to us.
On Amendment 185P, unlike electricity and energy, water is very much a constrained utility in this country. The amount of water available to keep powering homes, businesses and other activities, including energy stations, is significantly under threat. That is one reason why there will be one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to the farming sector in just two years’ time. There is something to be said about the amount of water that we think will be used by AI data centres and the like. At the moment, there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors across our country. Nor am I aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we are necessarily considering this in planning guidance, although there will be something more widely about whether water is available. This is a really important activity and the Government should absolutely be looking at it, regardless of whether this goes into the Bill.
When I did the plan for water, on making sure there was a clean supply of water—that was part of the intention—and thinking ahead, I do not think that we had really given much thought to this sort of consumption that we are now due to have. To give an example, one reason for the major delays to Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, the water company responsible said that it could not necessarily guarantee the amount of water to be used in the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has led to Sizewell C having to think about desalination plants and reservoirs but, at the moment, there are constraints on how some of these things can be spread across sectors in the generation of a nuclear energy station. It is imperative that we think about where else this could happen; to be serious, in terms of the building planned and business growth in the east of England, after Sizewell C was given its consent, no other business has been eligible to get or ask for any more water.
This is a genuinely critical area that the Government need to look at, which is why I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Earl today. I hope that they will give it serious consideration and I encourage the noble Earl to bring it back on Report.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are not yet fully aware of the growth, scale and significance of what we call AI-related infrastructure—the hardware and software required to create, train and deploy AI-powered applications and solutions. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies, fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for infrastructure investment, we must be mindful of the practical impacts that come with it, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Coffey have pointed out, with the two key areas being energy use and water.
As the noble Earl has highlighted, the sheer computational power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand. Equally, the cooling systems necessary for AI data centres can involve significant water usage. These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure that infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earl’s intention that these amendments hold back innovation; rather, they call for statutory recognition of these impacts within the planning system, supported by a clear national strategy, guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.
The noble Earl’s Amendments 185R and 185S rightly highlight the urgent challenge of climate change and the central role that planning and development must play in addressing it. Their emphasis on ensuring a resilient and sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome, and I place on record our appreciation of the sentiment behind them. At the same time, however, it is important to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impede housing delivery or economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to respond to these concerns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure and community energy projects. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the water and power required by data centres. Before I respond, I should say that we need to be very proud of our AI in this country. We have the third largest AI market in the world. The AI sector was valued at £72 billion in 2024 and is projected to be worth over £800 billion by 2035. Over £44 billion of investment has been announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024, which is a very good record, but of course the noble Earl raises some very important issues that run alongside this.
Turning first to Amendment 185N, noble Lords will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion in Committee last week on overheating and climate change, and I appreciate the intent behind this amendment of considering this matter in the context of emerging AI technologies. During my time as a Minister—and until last week I had responsibility for AI in my department; it has moved on now—I had the chance to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents. It has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, and not least to support our colleagues in planning in order to help them move things on much more quickly. It is this Government’s ambition to harness it for the good of our country, which is why we are actively monitoring the data centre sector and published the first government Estimate of Data Centre Capacity in May 2025, which includes measures indicating energy use.
Some data centre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. Officials from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are in the process of developing a national policy statement to guide this process, which will also be treated, importantly, as a materially significant consideration in the local authority-led planning process. This statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector, and we are aiming for publication in 2026. The Government have also, as the noble Earl mentioned, established the AI Energy Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, to provide expert insight into the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group which will explore options to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy solutions to power AI, tools to reduce carbon emissions from AI, and metrics to support energy efficiency.
Amendment 185P is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure. The Government are committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2037-38, with a 9% interim target for non-household reduction by 31 March 2038. As part of this commitment, Defra is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Business and Trade and the Environment Agency to determine how water efficiency and demand in data centres can be improved. Data centres use a variety of cooling systems, with only a small proportion using entirely water-based ones. Water-cooled data centres can use water very intensively, as has already been highlighted, particularly at times of peak demand, such as hotter periods. In summer 2025, the Environment Agency conducted a survey with the data centre sector, through techUK, the trade association for data centres, to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the Government are developing a national policy statement to guide data centre planning applications, and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and non-potable water systems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres. The MPPF is, and the future land use framework will be, very clear that grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land should be protected and used only where there is no alternative. That is already set out in planning policy.
Amendment 185R, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require planning authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments. I agree with the noble Earl that renewable energy generation in households—we have already had a discussion on this—is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national energy security and deliver the clean energy mission. On the practicalities of increasing renewable energy generation in new developments, I am pleased to say that my department is working very closely with DESNZ on the future homes standard. The future homes standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot of opportunity in the context of this Bill to mandate that new towns be preferred as sites for data centres, because the excess heat can be used in the district heating scheme.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes an important point about reusing the energy created by data centres, which we are exploring. It is very important that the new towns task force has a chance to do its work. They will be subject to the planning process, just like all other applicants, when they put them forward. But, as I said, we are aiming to protect grades 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, and I hope that other areas come forward to site the data centres. They are very important; we cannot do without them, that is for sure, so we need to consider very carefully where they might be sited, and the land use framework will give us a good indication about that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it was right to bring these amendments forward; they are important considerations on the future of AI and community energy. I thank all those who have spoken and broadly supported the amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the Conservative Front Bench—and the Minister for the detailed response I have received to the issues I raised. I welcome the fact that a national policy statement will be forthcoming; it is needed, and I look forward to seeing that.
The bit that is still slightly missing on AI is embedding the idea of energy efficiency in the planning system and making sure that we hold these big tech companies to account, because it is very easy for them to consume energy, and that causes a lot of problems for us as we transition to clean power. If the Government allow them to build data centres, they need a system to get access to those data centres to drive energy efficiency. I was trying to create a mechanism to do that with these amendments. My mechanism might not be the right one, but there is a conversation to be had about being able to use the power of AI to redesign the energy network according to how we best plug in renewables, for example, to drive energy efficiencies. I will leave that as a problem for all of us to think about going forward.
I also welcome the commitment and work from the Government on community energy; they added it as one the objectives of the Great British Energy Act and are coming forward with further guidance on that. I very much welcome the efforts being made to ensure that communities can not only generate power but benefit from it. That is essential to ensure that the public’s support stays with all of us who support the transition and that the next wave of energy is not done “to people” but “for people”, so that they get to benefit from the transition in the longer term. I look forward to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Restriction on works affecting listed buildings: exemptionAfter section 7(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (restriction on works affecting listed buildings), insert—“(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.””Member's explanatory statement
This removes the requirement for listed building consent being required for internal maintenance, repairs or changes to Grade II listed buildings.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I own a grade 2 listed property.
This is intended to be a probing amendment and a deregulatory measure. We read in the newspapers today that the Chancellor has recently recruited a planning and infrastructure adviser; clearly, the advice from the ministry is not enough for her. However, it is reported that Rachel Reeves is also keen to have fewer regulators and to get on with a deregulatory approach.
In England, there are about 400,000 grade 1, 2* or 2 listed buildings. Of those, according to Historic England, 91.7% are grade 2, 5.8% are grade 2* and 2.5% are grade 1. We often think about what a grade 2 listed building is. When I did my research, I randomly sampled 100 grade 2 properties on the Historic England database. Only six had any internal features. Nevertheless, the guidance is that one has to apply for listed building consent if there is any concern not just about painting but about whether you might change aspects of the internal character or any of the original materials.
From that research—my sample was of 100 properties, but the ONS uses 1,000 as its statistically relevant sample size when it does surveys—I think it is fair to say that very few are currently considered to have internal features that are deemed worthy for listing. Consequently, it feels like a lot of work—through a lot of approaches—is done on exploring listed building consent. Dare I say it, people will often ask for forgiveness rather than permission, in case somebody in the local village or town suddenly decides to dob them in if they have heard that some internal work has been done. Perhaps that is more a story for “Midsomer Murders” than for a learned debate here today.
I completely understand that, for grade 2* listed buildings, we start to see much more consideration of internal features such as prominent fireplaces, prominent staircases and a lot of other relevant things. However, quite often, for grade 2 listed buildings, the focus is on the external. For example, the house that I own is thatched. Apparently, the brickwork was done with a particular thing called Flemish bond; you can see that only on the chimney, which is however high up. Bearing in mind those sorts of features, this amendment would offer a simple, deregulatory approach that would not particularly harm the heritage of our country. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not completely in tune with my noble friend Lady Coffey, for which I hope she will forgive me. While I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way, I urge caution about some internal changes.
In recent years, a minimalistic approach has gained popularity. In the case of grade 2 listed buildings, this may mean ripping out features of historic importance and changing floor levels, ruining the proportions and character of beautiful, old buildings. While I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck, as sometimes, with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial, I would urge that this is not done without oversight.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that buildings of 1850 and before receive pretty much automatic listing. However, there are many lovely houses that are built after this, especially Victorian houses from 1850 to 1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special. They have no real protection. Even where those houses fall in a conservation area, it will mean that only the façade is preserved.
We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this, because once gone, we will never get them back.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the whole purpose of listed building legislation is to ensure the integrity of the listed structure. The requirement to apply for listed building consent is in order to protect the building from inappropriate changes which would compromise the listing. Many people in civic society care deeply about retaining and protecting listed buildings. As listed building applications are free, as we debated on an earlier day in Committee, that helps those who own listed buildings—there is no cost to it. Heritage planning officers know that some buildings need a fundamental change of use if they are not to lie empty and decay. That is okay, as long as it goes through a listed building consent application.
I know that these are large changes, but I will give one example. In my own town, there is a grade 2* listed building which is a former united reformed chapel—there are lots of great methodist, congregational or united reform chapels in the north. It was altered to become an Indian restaurant, allegedly the largest in the world, with room for 1,000 people. Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front, were given permission, but the listed building consent application enabled local people to know that a treasured building was not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if such changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure as a whole, constant minor changes could nevertheless add up to a big change that would not be appropriate and compromise the integrity of the listing.
As your Lordships can perhaps tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an interesting issue on exemption for listed buildings for internal repairs and renovations. I understand the desire for a lightening of the regulatory burden and that this a probing amendment, but there is also a need for balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would remove the requirement to get listed building consent for internal repairs, maintenance or changes to grade 2 listed buildings. I will just very briefly recount a cautionary retail in this respect. We do not have many old properties in Stevenage, and listed ones are even rarer. There was one in my ward, which was an 18th-century farmhouse. A builder put a planning application in and we tried very quickly to get a listing for it, because in the context of my town it is quite an unusual feature, but we could not. That was because the internal alterations to the building that had been done were so extensive that the listing people held that it was no longer representative of the properties that the listing would have recognised. So, although I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendment, which is to streamline the process and free up capacity in the system, we must be careful not inadvertently to remove important protections for our heritage assets.
The Government are committed to the protection of the historic environment, which is an irreplaceable resource, so that these important assets can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Our listed building framework offers legal protection for buildings of special architectural or historic interest. Many of these listings include those internal features that the noble Baroness mentioned—staircases, fireplaces and decorative plasterwork—and internal changes such as removing walls or exposing brickwork can erode the historic character of the building if not carefully considered. That is why we believe it is important that changes, including internal works, should continue to be subject to listed building consent. Without this vital scrutiny, we risk losing and damaging some of our most important heritage assets. The process of applying for listed building consent encourages owners to design any alterations sensitively.
We have, however, given local authorities powers to create listed building consent orders locally, which would allow them to grant a general listed building consent for specific types of work across their area. We have seen examples of this, including in Cheshire East, which grant permission for working—including, for example, relocation of loft hatches in certain listed properties in the area. We think these tools are a useful opportunity to streamline the consent process where there are specific works that would be suitable in their area.
I add that I had a first meeting last week and I now have a regular round table with DCMS colleagues and many of the bodies that support and champion the need of historic houses, so we will continue to have a dialogue with them about how we move this forward. For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank noble Lords who participated. I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that I specifically did not include 2*, which I think is the example to which she referred. I am also conscious of what the Minister has said. It could be worth considering. I am encouraged to hear what Cheshire East Council has done, but it feels very limited for moving a loft hatch, which I cannot believe would in any way necessarily have been representative of pre-1850 homes. But, going further, I think that there could be something to be said for having a further category, where the listing does not include internal features, whether listed building consents are needed. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting change that would be helpful because subsection (1B), referred to in the clause, is not yet in force and therefore is not yet shown on legislation.gov.uk.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 187, 200, 201, 202 and 203, which relate to the relationship between development corporations.
Development corporations are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. As we continue to deliver the many homes that this country desperately needs, we expect the number of development corporations to increase in the coming years. Different types of development corporations have been created in law to respond to the circumstances of that time. This has created ambiguities within the current legislative framework so that multiple development corporations could be created within the same locality. This risks creating confusion and delaying the speed of delivery for key strategic projects, which can be unhelpful and frustrating for all.
As the intention of our reforms in this Bill is to create a clearer, more flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework, I believe that these amendments are necessary. This is because they will set out the relationship between different types of development corporations by aligning their boundaries and removing any doubt over decision-making. These amendments will create a backstop so that, for example, if, following consultation, a centrally led development corporation had an overlap with a mayoral development corporation or a locally led development corporation, the overlapping part would automatically become part of the government-led area. The same would apply for a mayoral development corporation, which would have the same power over a locally led development corporation.
I hope that noble Lords understand why the amendments are necessary. Before I respond to the other amendments in this group, it would be helpful to listen to noble Lords’ views, so I shall reserve any comment on them until I wind up. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.
Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.
Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.
Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.
I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.
Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.
Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.
I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195A and to our probing opposition to Clause 93 standing part of the Bill.
Starting with Amendment 195A, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows a development corporation to
“do anything necessary … for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.
How is such a wide power to be defined, limited and safeguarded in its use? I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.
Turning to Clause 93 more broadly, I make it clear that we are supportive of development corporations. Our concern is to understand more fully how they are intended to function under the Bill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing.
I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations, given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple non-contiguous sites, an ability that will no doubt take on greater significance with the advance of devolution. How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? What safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or diluted accountability, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation? This question seems especially pressing in the light of the changes that may arise from the forthcoming English devolution Bill, which your Lordships’ House will be considering in the coming months. How will the Government ensure that the role of development corporations sits coherently alongside wider reforms to local and regional governance?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, having listened very carefully to the debate so far, I think the next best step would be to hear from the Minister, but I want to express some support for Amendment 362 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and Amendment 195A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on those when she replies.
On 3 April, guidance was issued by the Government to clarify the legislation, scrutiny and governance of mayoral development corporations in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I am pleased that steps have been taken to incorporate the recommendations of the Tees Valley Review, published over 18 months ago, to clarify the regulations for the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the South Tees Development Corporation. It is important to ensure that there is absolute clarity about oversight, reserved matters, consent and stranded liabilities, and I welcome the Government’s firm intention to do so.
However, it has puzzled me that the words “risk” and “risk management” do not appear in the guidance published in April. There is also nothing about capacity building; that point was raised a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It is very important that development corporations have the capacity to fulfil the expectations of the Government.
There is an issue, which we may come to in the next group of amendments, about where the development corporations will get their income from. I look forward to that discussion. I am concerned about how the mayoral development corporations will be structured to ensure that full risk analysis takes place on the decision-making for what will be major capital infrastructure investment. Overview and scrutiny are overview and scrutiny: scrutiny is scrutiny of a decision, and overview is overview of how decisions are being made. Risk and risk analysis come at the start of a decision to invest money, so this is not just about overview and scrutiny; it is about preventing risky investments.
When the Minister replies, will she explain who is going to pick up the bill if risk is not properly considered at the right point in the decision-making process? At the moment, I suspect that the bill will be carried by council tax payers in the area concerned and I would like that point to be clarified, because I do not think that a system based on the council tax payer being the body of last resort to make up a loss would be appropriate. I very much hope to hear the Minister’s views on those matters.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with the notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposing Clause 93 standing part. I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind this clause. Clause 93 clarifies and extends areas for development and the remit of development corporation models. It includes changes to legislation that would extend the remit of mayoral development corporations, so that they can deliver regeneration and new town development rather than just regeneration. It also allows that separate parcels of land can be designated as one new town area, overseen by one new town development corporation.
The current framework is outdated and not fit for purpose. Each development corporation model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of its introduction. This poses a significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, mayoral development corporations can be used only for regeneration projects, as the model was developed initially for London but then widened out to areas outside London, including rural areas. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will enable strategic authorities to create more mayoral development corporations, so it is even more important to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose.
Amendment 195A aims to remove the power permitting new town development corporations
“to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.
I reassure the noble Baroness that this is not a new addition to the new town development corporation framework. This provision is already written into primary legislation underpinning new town development corporations, as well as urban development corporation models. The changes to the infrastructure provision include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with mayoral development corporations, with the addition of heat pumps, which have been added to the list of infrastructure that can be delivered by all models.
As development corporations are used to respond to the specific needs of developments or regeneration schemes, it is important that the legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly. We all want to see large-scale developments and infrastructure projects that will support housing and economic growth, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure without compromising existing provisions. It would be a step backwards if we were to take the power away from new town development corporations and instead provide only a list of infrastructure, as some developments may require new technologies. Decisions to establish development corporations and the powers each will have will be made via regulations. Their oversight will be carefully designed and subject to statutory consultation.
Amendments 351ZA and 362, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I welcome his proposal. It is vital that we empower local leaders to transform underused sites to create thriving communities tailored to local needs. For this purpose, mayoral development corporations should be part of every mayor’s toolkit. However, we believe these amendments are unnecessary. The changes the noble Lord is proposing are already being made through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduced on 10 July 2025. Given its scope, that Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for these changes. I take the noble Lord’s point about delay, but I am not under the impression that there is going to be any grass growing under the feet of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think that is going to get moved on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Since we have in this Bill Part 4 relating to development corporations, I fail to see why it is not the appropriate place to legislate for mayoral development corporations, rather than the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I think the evidence points to completely the opposite conclusion to the one the Minister just used.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think it sits alongside other measures in that Bill. That is why it has been put into the EDCE Bill rather than this Bill.
Amendment 362 would commence provisions in relation to the development corporations within two months of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill passing. I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm in wanting the changes to be implemented quickly, and I share his passion for that. We recognise that they are important measures, creating a clear, flexible and robust development corporation legislative framework to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport to support sustained economic growth. We also want the changes to come into force as soon as practically possible. However—and I would say this—there is further legislative work and guidance to ensure that development corporations are set up for success. It takes a significant amount of time to establish a development corporation, including essential preparatory and scoping work. We do not envisage that this will cause any delays to those interested in setting up a mayoral development corporation, but I do not think the progress of the other Bill is going to hold things up unnecessarily either.
It might be helpful if I cover some issues around how this is going to work. We know that development corporations are a vital tool for delivering large-scale, complex property developments, particularly where the risk—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned risk—is too great for private sector delivery alone. To encourage the use of development corporations and reduce the risk of challenge, there should be clarity around their remit and functions.
Decisions to designate and grant powers to development corporations must be made by regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation, and they must be made with careful consideration of all the issues of oversight that we have heard about. The department consulted on oversight regulations for locally led urban development corporations last year, and the Government’s response is expected later this calendar year—I hope it does not run out before “later” arrives. Locally led urban development corporations cannot be set up before provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 are commenced.
In relation to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about South Tees, the Government have issued a response to the independent review of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture, which included clarifying the available measures to strengthen the oversight for mayoral development corporations. On 3 April 2025, guidance was published which clarified legislation and scrutiny of mayoral development corporations. I hope that that gives an adequate response to his question.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Can the Minister explain who the funder of last resort is when a loss is delivered by a mayoral development corporation? Is it the council tax payer for the geographical area of the development corporation, the combined authority or the Government? To put it another way, who makes up, pays for, a loss if a development corporation makes one?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course, we all hope there will not be a loss, but we must always have provision in place for that. I know that there is ongoing discussion with Sir Michael Lyons and others in the taskforce about how the financial details and programme work, so it is probably best if I reply to noble Lords in writing on that issue.
In relation to the points about capacity, which were very well made, again, discussions are going on with Sir Michael Lyons about how we make all this happen. We have already allocated £46 million to planning, but we will continue to have those discussions with the taskforce about what the delivery mechanisms are to be. That said, I hope that the noble Lord has had some reassurance and that he will agree not to press his amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in respect of my noble friend’s Amendment 195A, and reading the words in the Bill, I would be really interested in the Minister helping me understand what places limits on the last words on page 123 of the Bill. Would it be open to a development corporation, for instance, to do an Ireland and say that any business moving its headquarters to the area of the development corporation would pay half the tax rate current in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is not my understanding that there will be fiscal devolution powers in that way, but I will take that back and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I understood from what the Minister was saying that it is the Government’s intention to bring all of Section 172 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act relating to locally led new towns into force. Am I correct in that? I got the impression that that is the Government’s intention, but it was not quite explicit.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that the powers in the Act relating to locally led development corporations will be brought into force, but I have committed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister also mentioned the money that has been put aside by the Government to support further planning, skills training et cetera. Did she say that that could be used also by development corporations? I had the understanding that it was for local government and not for development corporations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness. I meant to say that the Government recognise the issue around planning capacity. We have already allocated that £46 million for local government, and we must have the discussions with Sir Michael Lyons that recognise that we need to make sure that the capacity is there to deal with new town development corporations as well.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister tell us when we can expect to see the report of the New Towns Taskforce?
“Relationship between different types of development corporation(1) The New Towns Act 1981 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).(2) In section 1 (designation of areas), after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) An order under this section may designate an area of land that includes any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under— (a) section 1ZB(2) (designation of locally-led new town in England),(b) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(3ZB) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(3ZC) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (3ZA), the Secretary of State may also make regulations—(a) amending any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) providing for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, providing for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) making consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3ZD) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3ZC), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the new town (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(3) In section 1ZA (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 1 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State),(b) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC), section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)”(4) In section 1ZB (designation of locally-led new town in England, as inserted by section 172(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), in subsection (2)—(a) for “may” substitute “must”;(b) omit from “if” to the end.(5) In section 77 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “1(3ZC) or”;(b) in subsection (3C), after “order” insert “or regulations”.(6) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as set out in subsections (7) to (9).(7) In section 197 (designation of Mayoral development areas)—(a) in subsection (1), for “any” substitute “an”; (b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) An area of land designated under subsection (1)—(a) may include any area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area of land that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(i) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(ii) section 134(1B) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of locally-led urban development area);(b) may not include any area that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(i) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(ii) section 134(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State).(See also section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 134(1E) and (1F) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.)(2B) Where the Mayor designates an area as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a), the Secretary of State must make regulations providing that the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(2C) The regulations may also—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area.(2D) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under this section, make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the Mayoral development area (see also section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”(8) In section 218 (transfer schemes: general provisions, in the definition of “transfer scheme” in subsection (1), after “section” insert “197(2D),”.(9) In section 235 (orders and regulations)—(a) in subsection (7), after paragraph (j) insert—“(ja) regulations under section 197;”;(b) in subsection (14), after “52” insert “or regulations under section 197”.(10) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as set out in subsections (11) to (13).(11) In section 134 (urban development areas)—(a) in subsection (1B) (as inserted by section 171(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “may” substitute “must”;(ii) omit paragraph (b) (and the “and” immediately before it);(b) after subsection (1C) (inserted by section 93) insert— “(1D) An order under subsection (1) may designate any area of land that includes an area (the “overlap area”) that is, or forms part of, an area that has already been designated (the “previously designated area”) under—(a) subsection (1B) (designation of locally-led urban development area),(b) section 1ZB(2) of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of locally-led new town in England), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(1E) On the coming into force of an order that makes provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the overlap area no longer forms part of the previously designated area.(1F) Where the Secretary of State makes an order that contains provision as mentioned in subsection (1D), the Secretary of State may also by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) amend any order relating to the previously designated area to show the new boundaries of the area, which may reflect not only the removal of the overlap area but also any other changes that are necessary or appropriate in consequence of its removal;(b) provide for the transfer of functions relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area;(c) where the overlap area completely covers the previously designated area, provide for the dissolution of the development corporation for the previously designated area;(d) make consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(1G) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (1F), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the overlap area to the development corporation established for the purposes of the urban development area (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”;(c) in subsection (4), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”;(d) in subsection (4A), after “(1B)” insert “or regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1F)”.(12) In section 134A (local authority proposal for designation of locally-led urban development area in England, as inserted by section 171(3) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A proposal area must not include any area of land that is, or forms part of, an area that is designated under—(a) section 134(1) (designation of urban development area by Secretary of State),(b) section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981 (designation of new town area by Secretary of State), or(c) section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 (designation of Mayoral development area).(See also section 134(1E) and (1F), section 1(3ZB) and (3ZC) of the New Towns Act 1981 and section 197(2B) and (2C) of the Localism Act 2011.)”(13) In section 171 (interpretation), in the definition of “urban development area”, after “it” insert “by virtue of subsection (1E) of that section or”.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would clarify the relationship between different types of development corporation so that any area of overlap in proposed new corporations will be resolved in favour of the higher-tier authority.
Lord Fuller
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 190 and 192. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated in the legislation. This is the best part of a complex Bill, although we know that it has already been overtaken by the devolution Bill launched in the other place.
Clause 94 seeks the achievement of sustainable development, and the mitigation of and adaption to climate change, but there would be no sustainable development without commercially sustainable financing of the proposals that the corporations bring forward. My amendment seeks to bring sustainable finance alongside those other sustainability issues. I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised and that mayors may be created in what we now learn to be a cat’s cradle of overlapping and competing responsibilities. Regardless of that, the day-to-day financial pressures felt by national and local government have never been greater.
In a former time, development corporations would simply hold out their hand to the Government or local councils for funding. Of course, that route may still be open, but we need to recognise that the old ways, with joint severability between various tiers of local government, are falling away. Building new towns is the work of generations; it goes beyond political cycles. Relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where building a secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million. In the pursuit of sustainable development and delivery on the plans, the money needs to be right, because without the money, how can all the desirable options in Clause 94 be delivered?
We need to give the development corporations powers to exploit the difference between funding and financing—by explanation, funding is writing the cheque, but financing is putting the deal together. It is no surprise that it is the financiers in the City of London who are the highest paid, because their task of turning those good ideas into reality is the hardest.
Development corporations are independent, but they have the benefit of being able to lean on the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body. I will not dwell too much on the significance of the governance of development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash. We need to make it easy for development corporations to raise funds in new and creative ways at the lowest possible coupon. My amendments would path find those.
Get this right and we will provide investable opportunities for pension funds that desire to invest in infrastructure bonds, for local people who want to invest in local facilities that benefit their area, or for sovereign wealth that seeks a home for its money within an advanced economy with well-defined property rights. But the well of wealth from these sources may not be enough, and there may be other ways to skin the cat. The corporations need to be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the traditional issuance of bonds, debt or similar instruments. But we should contemplate other sources of finance. That extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners whose land is to be incorporated as an in-kind contribution to the whole, so that they may enjoy the uplift over a long period rather than cash up front.
It should not be right that development corporations feel they need to reach for the CPO lever by default and then be forced to pony-up a premium price to the owner up front after the unpleasantness of the process—there are lots of “p”s in that sentence. In other words, development corporations need to have powers not just to assemble land but to be creative in the assembly of that land. The creative concept of the joint venture would allow more money to be spent on upfront infrastructure than on land acquisition. That is a better-value enterprise. By thinking creatively like this, the amount of upfront funding will be less and the ability to deliver essential infrastructure at the outset greater.
I want to place finance in its widest possible context, not just rooting it in the sort of funding where you stand on the street corner with your hand out. Let us seed these stand-alone corporations away from the other financial pressures that afflict local government and free them from the apron strings of those local authorities. While I accept that the development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, contemplated in Clause 93, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.
Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic
“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”
proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as
“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.
This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments. The financing of development corporations is an important issue and we will continue to engage on it. I look forward to the views of Sir Michael Lyons’s task force on the issues raised by noble Lords in this and the previous group on the financial aspects of development corporations.
We need to ensure that financing is long term and sustainable. If corporations are to take on debt to fund infrastructure, they and their lenders will need confidence that the debt will be repaid. This is a particular issue as a current Government cannot bind a future one. I will not comment on the issues in Amendment 197 as it has not been spoken to, but I assume that they will be discussed in group seven.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 188, 190 and 192 would add to the objectives of development corporations, such that all development corporations would be obliged to aim to contribute to the funding and financing of development proposals, with the option of using financial instruments such as bonds and debts to achieve this objective.
In addition to my earlier comments about how there are still further discussions to take place in relation to financing, I should have mentioned that resource funding will be available for the costs associated with running a development corporation. There are capital grant programmes as well, such as the national housing delivery fund and the social and affordable housing programme. Development corporations will be able to enter joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital. They will also be able to obtain further capital financing through loans and equity from the national housing bank and the national wealth fund. I thought it was important to clarify all that.
It is vital that development corporations, as well as the developments they co-ordinate and deliver, are properly financed. I therefore welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendments. They should not, however, be brought forward for two main reasons.
First, the amendments would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations. This Bill seeks to ensure that the development corporation legislative framework is clear, flexible and robust. Importantly, development corporations are used to address different types of development challenges depending on the nature of the project, including planning, land assembly and convening private sector investment. Development corporations need not directly fund development to be successful, as, for example, is the case for the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation. Requiring that all development corporations fund or finance development would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations, rendering the model unnecessarily inflexible.
Secondly, development corporations are able to borrow more affordably from central government. The existing legislation provides that both new town development corporations and urban development corporations can borrow directly from central government, irrespective of whether they are centrally or locally led. A mayoral development corporation can also borrow indirectly via its oversight authority, including from the Public Works Loan Board. If, instead, development corporations were to issue bonds or raise debt directly to fund development, this would likely be at a higher interest rate and less affordable than if they borrowed from government.
Amendment 197 relates to the technical area of compulsory purchase compensation. This seeks to amend the New Towns Act 1981 to allow new town development corporations to use their compulsory purchase powers under that Act to acquire land for large-scale housing and transport schemes without paying hope value compensation or needing to justify a direction in the public interest. This amendment would also ensure that land purchased under these powers would not count against departmental expenditure limits.
While I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment and the aims it seeks to achieve, I am not able to support it. Compensation for the compulsory purchase of land is calculated on the basis of the value of the land if it was sold on the open market where no development is being proposed. The assessment of the open market value of land includes value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for development other than for development which has planning permission. I think that is the term described as hope value.
Compulsorily purchasing land raises questions of common-law fairness and engages the European Convention on Human Rights. Any reforms to compulsory purchase compensation rules must be made in accordance with the convention. To respond to this constraint, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced the power to allow development corporations, when making CPOs under the New Towns Act 1981 to facilitate affordable housing provision, to seek directions for the non-payment of hope value from compensation providing there is justification in the public interest. The power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 allows a fair balance test to be conducted in each case between the public and private interests in making a direction and ensures compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The proposed amendment is a blanket, non-discretionary approach to removing hope value. The Government do not consider they have sufficient evidence to be confident that the amendment is consistent with ECHR rights, because it is not clear that the public benefit of removing hope value in these situations would outweigh the impact on the individual landowners affected by the proposed measure in all cases.
Under proposed new subsection (2B) in the amendment, land purchases would create an asset that does not have a direct financial return. Allowing development corporation land purchases to be excluded from departmental expenditure limits could significantly increase levels of public sector borrowing. The Government are committed to ensuring economic stability and sustainable levels of public debt through their fiscal rules. I therefore cannot support this change.
For these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, as part of my research for this series of amendments, I looked at the New Towns Act and I note that it is 80 years since the Minister’s home town of Stevenage was seeded, so to speak; it is now time to bring things up to date. At that time, central government had the power and the finance to get these things off the ground, but things have moved on and we need some more creative thinking. There are wider sources of capital and finance in the world and more players want to participate.
I do not accept that my amendment would arbitrarily constrain the development corporations in pursuance of financing their quite weighty objectives, many of which are enumerated in the next clause, Clause 95. It would not constrain them, but would give them a choice: an option—not a compulsion—to widen the pool of finance should they wish.
The Minister in her winding suggested that powers exist to borrow from central government. She referred specifically to the Public Works Loan Board. Anybody who knows anything about the Public Works Loan Board knows that, as a result of some rather ill-advised advances, it is now capped. I believe the sum is at £90 million; I cannot remember exactly, but that does not matter. The fact is that it is thus far and no further. The Minister asserts that the Public Works Loan Board is always cheaper than others. We know that not to be the case. As the example of the Municipal Bonds Agency demonstrated, there was a well of capital for international markets willing to invest in local infrastructure projects at lower rates than the councils were able to borrow from the PWLB—had the headroom existed. So the premise not only that central government is the only route but that any other routes would be more expensive is demonstrably false.
That is further the case if, as in the example I gave earlier, a landowner may wish to cede some of his land to the development corporations as part of the red line, in kind rather than in cash, it is possible that there would be no coupon to be paid at all. The interest—the return—would come long-term as the development proceeded.
So I do not accept that this is a constraining amendment. I take from what the Minister said that is its highly likely that the consequence of not accepting this option is that, first of all, capital may be constrained, it is possible the development corporations may pay more, and the opportunity to assemble land in a creative manner may be taken away. Clearly, we are in Committee; perhaps we ought to engage on this between now and Report. I fear that the Minister’s brief is labouring under a false premise. I think we can say that this can be resolved, and should be if the promise of development corporations is to be fulfilled. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not think I said that PWLB was the only source of funding for development corporations. I did mention that they will be able to enter into joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital and use the National Housing Bank and the National Wealth Fund.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw. Perhaps we can return to this on Report.
“(6A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 9B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 33 to 38 of page 127.
“Transfer schemes: general
9B Transfer schemes under sections 1 and 9A: general provisions(1) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme under section 1(3ZD) or 9A(6A).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to extend the provision about transfer schemes, drafted to cover schemes under new section 9A of the New Towns Act 1981 (transfer of transport functions) to schemes under section 1(3ZD) (transfer schemes in case of overlapping development corporation areas), inserted by my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 93.
“(7A) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations under subsection (3), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between the corporation and the relevant transport authority to which the regulations relate (see also section 140B (transfer schemes: general provisions)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 96, leaving out lines 1 to 6 of page 130.
“Transfer schemes: general
140B Transfer schemes under sections 134 and 140A: general provisions(1) In this section “transfer scheme” means a scheme under section 134(1G) or 140A(7A).”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be to extend the provision about transfer schemes, drafted to cover schemes under new section 140A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (transfer of transport functions) to schemes under section 134(1G) (transfer schemes in case of overlapping development corporation areas), inserted by my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 93.
Lord Lucas
“(A1) In section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, after the definition of “local authority” insert—““local news publisher” has the meaning prescribed to it in Schedule 2ZA.”(A2) After Schedule 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, insert—“Schedule 2ZALocal news publishersDefinition of local news publisher
1 The term “local news publisher” means—(a) a business that—(i) has as its principal purpose the publication of original, local news content, where such material—(A) concerns issues or events that are relevant in engaging the British public in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making,(B) is reported and published in the United Kingdom,(C) is published, online or in print, no less than once every 31 days, and(D) is subject to editorial control,(ii) is legally resident in the United Kingdom,(iii) possesses at least one director who is legally resident in the United Kingdom,(iv) employs on a salaried, freelance or voluntary basis at least one journalist,(v) is not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution,(vi) is subject to a code of ethical standards—(A) which is recognised in this schedule, and(B) which is published or administered by an independent regulator,(vii) has in place publicly available policies and procedures for handling complaints and resolving editorial inaccuracies and mistakes transparently, and that these policies and procedures are reasonably accessible to the public,(viii) maintains editorial independence from political parties, organisations that engage in lobbying or advocacy, and advertisers, and(ix) can demonstrate strong connections to the locality in which it operates.2 It is not relevant to the definition whether publication of such material as described in paragraph 1(a)(i) is done so with a view to making profit.3 Material is “subject to editorial control” under paragraph 1(a)(i)(D) if it meets the like definition set out in section 41(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.4 For the purposes of paragraph 1(a)(v), “government” means— (a) the Government of the United Kingdom, or the government of the devolved nations, or local, municipal and regional governments within the United Kingdom, or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof,(b) the government of a foreign nation, whether recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom or otherwise, or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof, or any devolved administrations, local, municipal or regional governments therein, or(c) any other body or international movement holding itself out as the legitimate government of a foreign nation, and/or any departments, agencies, corporations or subsidiary bodies thereof.5 For the purposes of paragraph 1(a)(v), “legislative institution” means—(a) the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or a constituent house or committee thereof, or any officer thereof,(b) the devolved legislatures of the devolved nations, or a constituent house or committee thereof,(c) the legislative assembly of a local, regional or municipal authority, such as the London Assembly, or a constituent house or committee thereof, or any officer thereof, or(d) the legislative assembly, local, regional, municipal or national, in or of a foreign nation as described in paragraphs 4(b) or (c).6 Further to paragraph 1(a)(vi)(B), the following organisations are considered valid independent regulators for the purpose of recognition as a local news publisher—(a) IMPRESS, and(b) the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).7 The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, amend paragraph 6 to add or remove organisations.8 A statutory instrument containing regulations under paragraph 7 not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament9 Any statutory instrument issued to effect the Secretary of State’s authority under paragraph 7 must—(a) be laid before Parliament for 60 days before enactment, and(b) in the event that an organisation is to be delisted, be published and transmitted to the organisation at issue in such a way as to entitle them to make representations to the contrary.10 A local news publisher is advantaged in demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which it operates under paragraph 1(a)(ix) where it—(a) is owned and operated by or within its community;(b) can demonstrate a high level of local readership;(c) employs a large number of locally resident journalists;(d) can demonstrate a positive relationship with its readership.11 Where an authority is required under this Act to publish a notice with a local news publisher, as in section 11(1)(a), it is required to give preference to local news publishers that—(a) can demonstrate high local readership comparative to other local news publishers in its locality, or(b) can demonstrate low financial burden to access for customers in its locality.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 207 I will speak also to my Amendments 208 and 209. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for adding her name to these; I am sorry that she cannot be here today.
Clause 98 refers to newspaper notices. The purpose of requiring notices in local newspapers is to inform the public. Most of the public now get their local news from sources other than traditional local newspapers. As the Government accept the need for notices—as evidenced by Clause 98—and we are looking at a system that costs the public purse around 50 million quid a year, I hope that they will agree that the notices that they are requiring and paying for should be placed where people will read them.
My amendments propose a much-needed update to the 1881 definition of a newspaper, which is what rules these notices at the moment, to allow local councils to place public notices in relation to planning and infrastructure with trusted, professional and widely read online local news outlets. That was what the 1881 legislation achieved in its day—it made sure that these notices were placed where people would read them and in publications that they could access and trust. We need to move that on a bit.
The local news industry has undergone a deep transformation with the rise of online news and the decline of printed papers. Last year, more than half of traditional regional dailies had a circulation of below 5,000 copies. Comparatively, the average local independent online news outlet attracted almost 500,000 unique users. Across the UK, digital outlets established in the past decade or so are connecting with growing audiences; I would name the Bristol Cable, the Waltham Forest Echo, the Manchester Mill, the Greater Govanhill in Glasgow, VIEWdigital in Belfast, and many others—including, of course, my local Eastbourne Reporter.
There have been countless calls in recent years to review the public notices system to support the regeneration of local news, including by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Sustainability of Local Journalism report and the House of Lords report The Future of News, published less than a year ago.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am amazed that no other Members of your Lordships’ House want to speak about local news and newspapers. I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right that the question we have to ask ourselves is: with the sad decline, as I see it, of printed local news, how best do we make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently placed only in printed news outlets, get a greater reading and more information about them spread by including them in reputable or quality online news outlets?
I agree with the noble Lord that it should be both, because a number of people still read a paper version of a local newspaper. I am amazed that there are people where I live—they contact me—who read these public notices and ask, “What on earth is going on here?”, even though they are printed in font size 6 or 7, so you need a magnifying glass to read them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has considered that public notices in the print media are very tightly printed, and how they can be accessible online. Sometimes, you get a whole page of public notices. I generally agree that we have to do something to make sure that more people have access to important information.
My understanding is that currently there is a public notice portal—public notices are gathered from the print media and put on to this portal. It would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is thinking about enabling councils, through legislation, to choose whether to publish directly on to that public portal.
Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have to have reform and your Lordships’ House and others have considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it. With those remarks, I look forward to other comments on this group of amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.
On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these interesting amendments, which relate to the publicity of notices on compulsory purchase orders. I cannot help thinking that there is a solution to this, but perhaps not exactly this one. We have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I support local news publications. I am one of the sad local government geeks who always turns straight to the public notices, not just because I want to see what my own council is doing—now that I am not there anymore—but because I want to see what the next-door councils are doing as well.
Local newspapers are an important part of the way that information is shared, but they also play an important role in supporting democracy, communicating with our residents and being a signpost to all kinds of events that are going on locally. I know that they have been through a very tough time recently. In my area, if we did not have the paper edition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online paper either—the paper is produced online but also produced as a paper copy. It is not delivered anymore but you can pick it up in a supermarket, so it is an important part of our local life.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper that notices of making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain quality and readership criteria, including possessing at least one director legally resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution, being subject to a code of ethical standards and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate.
The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. The Government consider that the requirement to publish notices in newspapers is an important part of the CPO process. Acquiring authorities are already motivated to ensure that notices are well publicised, because that helps them to avoid legal challenge.
However, these amendments would constrain and place unnecessary burdens on acquiring authorities when attempting to comply with the requirement to publish notices. The amendments would make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process, increase the potential risk of legal challenges, which would result in additional costs, and delay decision-making and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives.
It would be helpful if the notices could be published in a bigger font. I believe that the noble Baroness said that it is usually size 6, but it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper. Something I find helpful is taking a picture of them on my phone and then expanding that.
For all the reasons I have given, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the Minister said about the quality criteria I put in the amendment. I included them for discussion.
However, I do not understand her willingness to restrict the publication of these notices to 1881-style newspapers. Why? Surely the purpose of publishing these notices is that they get noticed. Therefore, the Government should say that they will create a website on which all such notices will be placed, and people will know to go there to find them. They could be sorted by locality or whatever. It would cost a few hundred thousand pounds a year, rather than the £50 million a year we are paying at the moment. They would all be available there, and people would know where to go. What they are currently doing is paying £50 million for people to have to pay even more to buy the newspaper, just to see the public notices page.
Local newspapers used to be vibrant, argumentative and full of interesting journalists. Now, you are lucky if they have one journalist. Mostly, they include just reprinted press announcements and syndicated competitions. If these notices are meant to get into the press where people will notice them randomly, they need to be much more widely distributed. Alternatively, if they should be publicly available, so that the people who know that they are of interest can find them, they should be on a government website. The Government are paying a lot of money for no value with the current system.
I would be interested to know—if not now then in writing—whether the Government’s intention is that notices are to be published so that interested people can find them, or whether it is more important that people can find the notices at random. If it is the former, I will bring back an amendment on Report to seek to create a government website instead of the newspaper requirement. If it is the latter, I will try to table a simplified version of this amendment. I would be happy to receive an answer in writing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to mitigate the potentially harsh and punitive application of the proposed new section 32A of the 1973 Act when a dwelling is compulsorily acquired.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209A concerns the scope of exceptions to home loss payments in Clause 103. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, is a serious step for which clear and proper justification should be required. The person displaced is usually compensated by a statutory home loss payment. In Clause 103, new Section 32A of the 1973 Act stipulates exceptions to the right to such a home loss payment when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair or there have been other failures. Under the Bill, people covered by those exceptions are to be denied any home loss payment. However, in reality, the price the individual receives on compulsory purchase will always already reflect any lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment would therefore be in addition to the reduced price, which reflects a poor state of repair.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the principle behind this amendment is an important one and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, deserve careful consideration. It is a sensitive matter, particularly where an individual’s poor health or other infirmities are concerned, and we will want to look at this area closely. More broadly, we are concerned about the extensive nature of this section of the Bill, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for bringing us this amendment on compulsory purchase compensation rules. The amendment would ensure that home owners still receive home loss payments, even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them, if that failure is due to the person’s poor health or other infirmity, or their inability to afford the cost of the action. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.
Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973, where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments is excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. This Bill amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. However, where the exclusion of a home loss payment applies, owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of their property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process, such as legal or other professional costs. The provision introduced by this Bill will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers to bring sub-standard properties back into use as housing and ensure that the compensation regime is fair.
The amendment would ensure that, where an owner can show that they did not deliberately allow their property—subject to an improvement notice or order—to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict and that it was the result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources, they can still make a claim for a home loss payment. We believe that it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate to serve an improvement notice or order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for both the supportive remarks from the Opposition Front Bench and the considered response from the Government. I would like to think about that—in particular, the wider implications of what is being proposed—more closely. On that basis, although I reserve the right to return on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert “unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this amendment relates to removing—or “disregarding”, to use the legislative term—hope value from recreational land that is to be purchased for public use.
The principle of hope value was debated at length and in detail during consideration of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in your Lordships’ House. It was agreed by the Government of the time that hope value could be disregarded by acquiring authorities for a number of purposes—including for schools, for example. However, hope value for public recreational uses was not included in the list of categories where hope value could be disregarded.
So Amendments 209B and 209C in my name seek to add the disregarding of hope value by acquiring authorities into the legislation. The reason for that is fairly straightforward and obvious. On a previous day in Committee, we had a debate on the importance of recreational land. My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a strong case for better planning and more openness to planning applications for sporting use. These two amendments seek to add to that.
The importance of the availability of public recreational land cannot be overstated. In days gone by, children could go out of their front door and play in the street without risk. Now that is not possible because of the obvious influx in terms of every household having a car. So, in order for them to play outside, children have to be taken somewhere. If there are not enough “somewheres” to go to—somewhere to kick a ball in a local recreation area; a park, somewhere to go and walk round a lake; or somewhere to play on playing equipment that is provided—it is a huge loss to the development of young people.
Sport, such as the World Athletics Championships—I am an athletics fan, although I could not get to Tokyo—is really important to this country, so it is important that all children have opportunities for play. If local authorities wish to extend the use of recreational areas, it is best if the cost of that land is not added to by hope value.
Those two simple amendments have the same purpose: to enable local authorities to buy land for recreational use without hope value attached to it. I look forward to hearing about the other amendments in this group, and will respond to them when I reply to the Minister. With those short but, I hope, strong messages showing that this is an important issue, I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 210 and 211 in my name and Amendment 227G in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, as I have previously disclosed on this Bill.
When we say that the Conservative Party is under new management, we mean it. We are rightly proud of much of the work that went into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, but we are also clear about areas where improvement is needed. I have tabled Amendment 210 to address one such issue, an issue that sits uncomfortably with our core principles of property rights and fair compensation. We believe deeply in the right of individuals to own property, and that such ownership should not be disturbed lightly. When it is, compensation must be fair and transparent and reflect the true value of what is being lost. That includes hope value.
Hope value is not a vague or abstract notion; it is a well-established component in the valuation of land and property, used not only in sales but in inheritance tax assessments and a wide range of commercial transactions. It reflects the possibility that land might in future obtain planning permission for a more valuable use. It is the very element that allows developers and others to bring forward land for development, persuading reluctant landowners to sell by recognising the future potential of their land.
To disregard hope value is to ignore how the market works. It risks undermining confidence in the land market and creating new barriers to development rather than removing them. The valuation methodologies underpinning hope value are well understood, professionally governed and economically rational. They are consistent with option valuations in financial markets, although I am not sure they go so far as to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
If a site has no realistic prospect of future development, its hope value will naturally be nil or negligible. However, where a site has a reasonable expectation of future change in use, reflected in prices agreed between buyers and sellers, we must ask why the Government or local authorities should be entitled to disregard that. In doing so, they risk ignoring market signals and distorting resource allocation. If the market values a piece of land as having the future potential for residential development but the authority wants to use it for a different, potentially less efficient use, that should prompt reflection, not concealment.
In a helpful Written Answer following Second Reading, the Minister set out the intended application of these provisions. That response included reference to land for educational and health purposes but also to housing, and not necessarily affordable housing. That gives little comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has moved her Amendment 209B, which seeks to expand this to recreational facilities. Needless to say, we do not support that.
We are told that the powers will be used to support affordable housing schemes, but in practice the drafting is broad, the safeguards are weak, and I see no mechanism that protects landowners should the purpose of the CPO change after acquisition. Could the Minister clarify? Would these provisions still apply if the land were no longer used for the original purpose stated in the CPO? Clear guidance—or, better still, an amendment to the Bill—could help to avoid costly litigation in the years to come.
The Minister’s letter also cited examples where removing hope value might help to bring forward certain sites, such as brownfield land where viability is an issue, infill plots, and allocated sites that have not yet come forward, but that analysis does not hold. If viability truly is an issue, the hope value will already be low or nil, and on infill or allocated sites it is not the price that delays development but the length and complexity of the planning process and the delays caused by responses from statutory consultees and agencies.
I hope I have persuaded the Committee that removing hope value does not unlock land or accelerate housing delivery. On the contrary, it undermines property rights, weakens trust in the planning system and may ultimately deter landowners from bringing land forward.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 227G, which stands in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would require the Secretary of State, within one month of the Bill being passed, to publish a report on whether the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities remains compatible with the rights and freedoms protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 1 of Protocol 1, “Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions”.
The issue relating to Clause 105 is that it allows acquiring authorities, when calculating compensation for compulsorily purchased land, to exclude hope value. That is so even where that hope value is genuine, long-established and grounded in realistic prospects of future development. This risks leaving landowners with compensation that does not reflect the true value of what they are losing. Indeed, it is not just a risk; it is more than that, and it will surely come to pass. There is also no statutory mechanism preventing acquired land later being disposed of at full value—potentially by a private entity—without redress to the original owner. This raises clear questions of fairness, proportionality and potential misuse of public power, and I look to the Minister for clarification on this.
Equally troubling is the absence of safeguards to ensure that land taken compulsorily is actually used for its intended purpose and not sold on later for profit, with no compensation or benefit to the original owner. This risks opening the door to misuse of state power; it diminishes public trust. This would be contrary to the principles of fair dealing that were established at least 70 years ago and have been acted on by Governments of all persuasions ever since.
In this, I refer to the Crichel Down affair, which should be etched on every Minister’s heart. This was a British Government scandal in the 1950s. It involved the compulsory purchase of agricultural land in Dorset for RAF bombing practice. The land was later transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. The ministry then significantly increased the land’s price, making it unaffordable for the original owner’s successors. The ensuing public inquiry, which criticised the ministry’s actions, led to the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture—note that; the resignation—and the establishment of the Crichel Down rules. This requires government departments to offer surplus land back to former owners or their successors.
Although this situation is not exactly the same as the one my amendment addresses, the mischief is similar. The principles underlying it should be no different. It is called “fair dealing”. I invite the Minister to say plainly that, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing.
The Crichel Down scandal established that principle. Public bodies making use of CPOs should not later, if they change their minds, make a financial gain at the expense of the original landowner—so much for the English common-law position. As I have explained, those principles apply to a different but comparable position to that which this amendment addresses.
I turn shortly to Article 6 of the convention. This requires access to an effective remedy, yet the opacity around how compensation is assessed in the absence of procedural safeguards in some cases may give rise to a challenge under that provision.
This amendment does not seek to obstruct regeneration; it seeks legal clarity, transparency and reassurance that the Government remain committed to fair dealing and to honouring their obligations under the convention. I urge the Minister to recognise the importance of these protections and accept the need for a report when the Bill becomes law.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 325 in this group but, first, I would like to support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst. I echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that someone rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed?
Generally, in the past, this has been done only for huge infrastructure projects—not that that makes it better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done, although we have just heard of a very awful example from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. However, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read about the property removed to make way for HS2: the family farms that were taken and the homes that people had to leave. Do the general public really think this is a good thing? Surely, it is a human rights abuse. The Bill incentivises this approach by allowing acquiring agencies to buy the land at agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people, not causing utter misery.
I thank noble Lords who have allowed me to insert Amendment 325 into the group. Amendment 325 would insert new subsection (2A) into Clause 83 to ensure that fields used by people to graze their animals and high-quality agricultural land that could be used for food production cannot be compulsorily purchased by Natural England as part of its environmental delivery plans.
I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have these property rights. In the Bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I just said, where it is required for new development.
I spoke last week about how high-quality agricultural land should be used to produce food, which is in proposed new paragraph (b) of this amendment, so I will not repeat all that we talked about then. I would like to focus on proposed new paragraph (a), which concerns
“land … that is in personal use for the grazing of animals”.
People who have a few fields, for horses, donkeys or maybe llamas, goats, the odd pet sheep or anything else, need those fields to keep their livestock and pets. These fields are often on the outskirts of villages or towns. They therefore look rather attractive for development but, if this land were removed, what would happen to the animals and livestock?
A while ago, the Prime Minister himself purchased a field, so that his mother could care for neglected donkeys. Sadly, she has now died and the field has been sold, but what would have happened if this field had been taken while it was being used for the donkeys? In short, as I have said before, I believe that compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used by a Government in only the most extreme of circumstances, and that land that is being utilised for family animals should never be considered.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring that I have shares in a family company that owns a farm in the Midlands. To avoid giving a Second Reading speech, and to save us all quite a lot of time, I will jump over what I was going to say on Amendment 210 and just say that I agree thoroughly with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst, on those matters. After all, so-called hope value is just another term for what the market is prepared to pay—in other words, market value.
When we look at land, the owner may already have paid inheritance tax on it, invested in its maintenance and improvement, and spent substantial sums, time and effort seeking planning permission. For the state or local authority simply to swipe the increase in value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development, for EDPs or anything else.
There is a different perspective, at least in the case of land: the increase of value may be derived from societal need—for example, space for housing—rather than entirely from the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled to at least a share of the uplift in value. But it already is. The state, without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% capital gains tax on the price achieved by all vendors and other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission—in the form of planning conditions, Section 106 agreements and so on.
We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase shortly in subsequent amendments, but this is on hope value. In February 2025, the Compulsory Purchase Association, in its response to the consultation on the process and rules for compulsory purchase, had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would—I will try to list these briefly: make the development process slower and more complex; produce distortions in a two-tier market with some land taken from its owners subject to the removal of hope value via compulsory purchase and some land sold at true market price; discourage developers and owners from promoting land for allocation or development; encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property; and have equalities impacts on the human rights of those affected—for example, through potential abuse by acquiring authorities and time pressure put on owners to accept terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue that it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of the compulsory purchase process as a fair and equal one.
There is a case for society to capture some of the value from development. As I have tried briefly to illustrate, society already does so in the form of significant tax and planning conditions. The real issue is not to confiscate hope value but to ensure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires, first, a review of how long a planning permission can run before being lost, and, secondly, an end to the practice of a planning permission being acquired with the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards. Contractual obligations in this area need to be far tougher. Putting together the time limit and this contractual aspect with limited planning permissions would address issues such as land banking, which are the subject of other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, to hearing the Minister’s response to this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 211. I support what my noble friend Lord Roborough said on it, and indeed what my noble friend Lord Sandhurst said on his amendment.
I was a chartered surveyor back in 1976 when development land tax was introduced, and I recall the disastrous effect it had on the market for land becoming available for development. There is no doubt that clauses such as those we have in the Bill will have the same deleterious effect on the natural process of buying and selling land and encouraging landowners to provide land for development and therefore fulfil some of the housing needs of this country.
It seems to me quite wrong to get rid of hope value in the way that the Government are doing. It is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, a fair deal. It is unjust. I too remember the Crichel Down case, which my noble friend mentioned. In fact, I remember talking to Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Minister who resigned over the affair. That shows how old I am now, but it reinforces my dislike of the chances of the land not being returned to the original owner. That is the purport of Amendment 211. I wish my noble friend Lord Nugent was still alive and in his place, because he would be able to give an erudite summary of the difficult problems. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. Amendments 209B and 209C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to amend Clause 105 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments seek to introduce a change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.
While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we had a very interesting debate on this subject twice in last week’s Committee—I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.
Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits to be facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his Amendment 210. This seeks to repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove Clause 105 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing, and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient. The amendment would remove the power, which was introduced, as he rightly said, by the last Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase, and to pay reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations of land values by landowners. This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly, and significant amounts of developable land remaining unused.
The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring that landowners are awarded fair compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I thank him for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, we will discuss the nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. To successfully deliver this new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required. We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted, especially trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State. The landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach.
Requiring Natural England to return land in the circumstances set out in the amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natural England to have these powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land, whether by agreement or, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase. Having this range of options provides certainty that conservation measures can be delivered. It is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.
In line with the safeguards provided in the Bill, if land were required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment, this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. That would reduce the amount of development that the EDP would cover; increase cost to developers; or trigger the need to revoke the EDP, requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure that the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble Lords. However, I trust that the Committee can recognise the need for these targeted powers, to ensure that the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win-win for nature and development. In a meeting with Natural England and a number of noble Lords who are here today, Natural England said that it had used the power only three times ever. I do not anticipate it doing this all the time.
Lord Roborough (Con)
In relation to Amendment 211, can the Minister indicate whether a CPO would happen only once a landowner or farmer had been offered a contract to carry out the EDP works themselves—after they had been offered the option of doing the work that Natural England was intending to do on that land under its CPO ownership?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord that reassurance this afternoon. I am sure that he will understand that that is not included in the Bill at the moment—he may want to consider something on that later—but I understand the reason that he is saying it. We have, however, said very clearly that there will be the possibility for the private sector to contribute to EDPs. We are encouraging our colleagues in Natural England to develop that further.
Amendment 325, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Hodgson, would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is in use for the grazing of animals or is high-quality agricultural land. As I have just set out, there is an extremely high bar for the compulsory purchase powers under the NRF, with the Secretary of State having to approve any use of these powers. As I said in my response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, there is a clear need to ensure that CPO is available, albeit with this very high bar. The use or future use of land will of course be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, and I set out earlier this afternoon the consideration in both the land-use framework and the NPPF that land in other use must be considered before resorting to agricultural land. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration when considering whether to allow the CPO, and will ensure that sensible choices are made that align with the Government’s wider objectives, not least in respect of food security, which is a discussion we have had many times in your Lordships’ House. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Amendment 227G, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, relates to the use of compulsory purchase powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights are adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities.
The power to compulsorily acquire a person’s land is a draconian power which engages the ECHR and raises questions of common-law fairness; I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred to that himself. A fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process is that the confirming authority should be sure that the purposes for which a compulsory purchase power is proposed justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. Acquiring authorities must demonstrate to the confirming authority that such an interference is so justified. When making their decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for each individual CPO, the confirming authority must always give consideration to the provisions of Article 1 and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected.
The compulsory purchase process also enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of inquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent inspector, reporting to the Secretary of State, whose decision is subject to legal challenge to uphold the rights enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. When justifying their CPOs, the Government guidance on compulsory purchase is clear that acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impacts on human rights from the respective order have been considered. The compulsory purchase process already provides protections to the rights of individuals affected by compulsory purchase and, for these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very detailed response to this group of amendments, but I am rather disappointed that the Government did not feel able to add a public recreational use to land that is to be disregarded for hope value by acquiring authorities.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Building regulations: swift bricks(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.(3) For the purposes of this section—“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the common swift and other cavity nesting species;“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, I shall move Amendment 212, to which I have added my name. My noble friend sends his apologies to the Committee that he is detained elsewhere and cannot be here today. I am grateful, as is he, that my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Hintze have also added their names to the amendment.
At the beginning of our deliberations today, the Government Whip exhorted that we have swift debates, and I have moved a swift amendment. So, I am helping the Government yet again.
This is a subject we discussed in the levelling-up Bill and it was mentioned at Second Reading of this Bill. It is a simple amendment, which is probably why I am able to speak to it. It asks that a swift brick, which allows a swift potentially to breed in it, be added when a new build is made. This would apply only when appropriate. I point that out because some people have said that it may not always be appropriate.
I am sure that Members of this House know all about swifts, but here is a very brief résumé. They are migrants that come here quite late—normally at the end of April or in May—having flown all the way from sub-Saharan Africa or the Congo Basin. They do not stop flying. They mate on the wing. The only time they are not flying is when they are nesting.
These poor swifts have been declining in numbers. There may be a variety of reasons, such as a lack of insects and so forth, but one reason that has been identified is the success of insulation in houses. Cavity insulation means that the nesting areas that would normally be under eaves or wherever are not there. Imagine these poor swifts: they have flown all the way from the Congo, they are looking forward to going into the building that generations of swifts have been going to and they find that it is effectively blocked up.
The simple thing we are asking for is that the swift brick is placed in building regulations. I have a feeling that the Government might suggest that this could be planning policy, but I do not think that that is sufficient. I cannot understand why Governments—the previous Government were a little shy on this as well—will not accept this. I know that some people think it is perhaps overregulation or burdensome, and I heard it whispered, but I could not believe it is true, that there is lobbying from developers and builders. I cannot believe that that could in any way influence a Government, so I just ask the Government to reconsider.
This is in fact a great opportunity because, literally just a year ago, I think by a few days, campaigners, including my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, the swift campaigner the indefatigable Hannah Bourne-Taylor and others—I will not mention them all—met the then Secretary of State in Defra, the right honourable Steve Reed. He said that they were pushing at an open door because Defra has always been in favour—they are the friends of the environment—but sometimes other departments get in the way. This is therefore a great opportunity because we now have a convert to swift bricks in the ideal position to sanction this particular thing, so I am hoping that it can be done. It has been done successfully elsewhere, such as in Gibraltar. Some people might ask what happens if swifts do not come in. Other birds, including house sparrows, which are not as common as they used to be, can also utilise them, so it as a very good measure.
I say, finally, to the Government Benches that some of the measures in this Bill have not been quite to the flavour of environmental groups and members of the public who think that their language on bats and newts was a little bit extreme. So, in that same spirit of helping the Government regardless of the political party and in order to help them to get a win-win, this is the ideal time to allow this measure and put it into the Bill.
I support the other amendments in this group: Amendments 225—to which I have added my name—227GA and 338. I wanted to make sure that this is a swift debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I also support all the amendments in this group, which I think would support the Government’s stated aim to help nature in this Bill by making sure that the places that we build for humans at least minimise harm to wildlife and, in the case of swift bricks, actually help it.
I speak to Amendment 225 in my name and thank the noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird-safe design of buildings and to ensure that new buildings and significant changes to existing but not exempted heritage buildings incorporate this guidance as far as is practicable. Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment with what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world but would make the UK the first to introduce national bird safety legislation, which is something that could provide a welcome positive message for the Government to project.
I know that there are broader environmental concerns with the Bill, which we shall come on to later tonight, but the potential positive effects of this single amendment are enormous. Remember that the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass in buildings in the UK is over 30 million per year. The problems are simple. First, birds cannot see glass. Clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or sky is a hazard. Secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crash into a building.
The solutions are also simple, well researched and legislated for in many places. I have been able to base the wording of this amendment on that in many other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird-safe standards since 2011, Washington DC, New York, Portland in Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hesse and Zurich. There are also bird-safe design guides based on 40 years’ worth of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada and Singapore. We have experts in the UK too. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid—essentially, ones that make it look as though a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a perch in a tree, but where there is actually a sheet of lethal glass. These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or you can use bird-safe glass. That is simply glass that is made visible to birds, either through patterns that we can also see or through patterns that reflect ultraviolet, which are invisible to us but visible to birds.
Research has shown that specific patterns, such as lines no thinner than two millimetres, spaced no wider than 50 millimetres apart, can effectively stop a bird flying into glass—a more than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certify bird-safe glass, and there are many designs available from different manufacturers, including the UK’s Pilkington glass, which has a certified variety.
Then there is night-time lighting. Many cities around the world now have lights-out times. Even New York’s Twin Towers memorial beams get switched off for periods during bird migrations to help birds escape their fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions is surprisingly low compared to North America. Experts I have spoken to around the world were delighted to hear from me, because they think of Britain as being so far behind in bird-safe buildings despite a world-leading status in so much animal welfare research and legislation. This amendment could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, it would help put the Bill in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, as the Animal Sentience Committee has already pointed out, and it could save tens of millions of birds every year.
As for the cost, producing guidelines is easy, as I say, given the plethora of sources already available. Bird-safe architectural design is also easy once you know the guidelines. In a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency in glass buildings. The regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency too. The cost of glass varies depending on specifications, but manufacturers that I have spoken to estimate that, at the moment, the cost of bird-safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass and about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all have said that those costs would come down quickly with scale. Not only that, but bird-safe glass apparently used to be made here in the UK, with 90% of it exported to projects in China, Europe and North America, driven by their legislation. With the market mainly being overseas, manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany to follow demand, but could return if we caught up with global bird-safe legislation.
Amendment 225 seems to me an example of the much sought after win-win. Putting it into this Bill, alongside others in this group, would help demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to helping nature and nature recovery, alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Grender, I will speak to her Amendment 338. I am grateful, as I am sure she would be if she were here, for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. This is a debate where I think we are going to have unanimity around the House; we on these Benches agree with all the amendments in this group. I will make a few swift points about the specifics of the amendment from my noble friend, which is about homes for nature at the same time as homes for people; it would amend building regulations to protect biodiversity in all new developments.
If we are to have homes where nature can live, feed and breed, we will have to take specific measures. I absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, articulated so well in moving the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I am not going to talk about swift bricks, which are included in the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grender, but I want to talk about some of the other very much endangered species which it also covers, including bird boxes, bat boxes and hedgehog highways.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I give the Green group’s strongest possible support for all the amendments in this group. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is recovering well from her operation last week.
If there is one amendment that my noble friend will regret not being here for, it is Amendment 212 on swift bricks. She is very passionate about swifts, and is it any wonder? These amazing creatures, with their top speed of 110 kilometres per hour, travelling 5,500 kilometres each way for their migrations, are long-distance athletes. They are making that journey, and then finding nowhere to raise their young. That is the reality of what we, by our actions, have created. Of course, they are now red-listed.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already set this out very clearly and carefully, and the other noble Baronesses have already said a lot. I just note that, when we debated a very similar amendment to what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, then on the Opposition Benches, said that she was “delighted” to see the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that it was
“justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits ”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 541.]
and that it had the Labour Party’s full support. Can we get to there, please? This is such a small measure. Why not? It is such a tiny action and a small cost. Yet, if you are a swift, this is not a small thing. This is a matter of life or extinction.
The other amendments are on other things we need to do, but there is a lot of discussion that the situation of swifts is unique. I fully back the hedgehog highways, the gaps in fences and other simple things, but swift bricks are just so simple.
Amendment 225, which was clearly introduced by the noble Baroness, is on bird-safe buildings. The British Trust for Ornithology has done a great deal of work on this, estimating that 100 million birds crash into the windows of buildings in the UK each year. One-third die as a result. That is a huge toll that is almost invisible. Back in 2022, the BTO did some research looking at local planning rules and essentially, there is no protection in any of our major cities and communities.
I will take noble Lords back to a case study that illustrates what happens on a day-to-day basis. It happened in a single day, so it really made an impact. Back in 2023 in Chicago, as a result of citizen science efforts, all the sad carcasses of more than 1,000 birds that had flown into one building in the US were collected. You may recall the pictures; a huge array of bird bodies was laid out. As was set out then, some very simple measures would have stopped that happening—the measures this amendment calls for.
Amendment 227GA is in my name and has considerable similarities to the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but perhaps goes a little further. It says that, within 18 months of this Act coming into force—I am allowing more time because this is much broader than what we need for swifts—regulations under the Building Act should be brought in to protect, and to ensure
“opportunities for living and feeding space for nature, mammals, birds, reptiles and insects”.
I also talk about the need for resources for plants.
The inspiration for this is probably not unique, but fairly unusual. It comes from an exhibition now on—I urge noble Lords to go and see it—at the Design Museum. It is called “More than Human” and is the first major exhibition of a growing movement of more than human design: a new generation of designers who understand that humans can flourish only alongside other activities and systems. It is part of the future observatory, the Design Museum’s national research programme for the green transition.
Let me give one example. There is a piece of artwork by Andres Jaque, “Transspecies Rosette”. It is a piece of a façade of a building made of cork, which is ideal for mosses, grasses, bacteria and mould. Normally, the façade of a building is designed to be impermeable—to stop anything growing and to keep everything out. What if we turned that around, and started to think about what a different kind of society would look like? I will very briefly mention “Sculpture for Octopuses” by Shimabuku, who experimented to see what colours octopuses liked and made artwork as a result.
I will conclude with a recollection from my youth. In 1988 I was a young journalist, and some Australians were marking the bicentenary of the start of the genocide of the Aboriginal people and the massive destruction of the environment of Australia that followed. The Australian parliament building was opened, but it was bogong moth migration season, and almost immediately the building filled up with bogong moths. No one had thought about this. They had brought in British western design traditions, plonked them down in Australia, and that was the result. So many decades later, the bogong moth, which the Aboriginal communities had feasted on over centuries—they had eaten them but also protected them—is now on the IUCN red list. It is gravely endangered. Something that, only decades ago, existed in great numbers is now threatened with extinction. We have to stop making buildings that have that kind of impact.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will be even swifter than the noble Lord, Lord Randall. There are some good ideas in these amendments. If we can protect bats in the belfry and great crested newts in the pond, why can we not do the same for swifts? They are such wonderful birds.
I am also interested in Amendment 225, because I have witnessed, very distressingly, quite a few birds smashing into windows and glass on my small farm in mid-Wales. To see these beautiful creatures lying on the ground, either stunned or dead, is very upsetting. Any efforts we could make to protect our dwindling bird population from crashing into buildings is to be supported.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I speak from a building that is full of moths—but I have never tried eating them.
I approve of Amendment 227GA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; it goes to the root of the fact that we must find ways of living with and closer to nature. It ought to be slightly more detailed, so that I am allowed to exclude mice, but the overall principle—that we provide for wildlife living alongside us—is right.
Although I have had provision for swifts for the past 15 years, it has never had a swift in it—principally, I think, because there are probably not enough insects for the swifts to live on. We therefore need to provide a full habitat and not just a nesting place. Swift bricks sound far too much like an easy exit for the Government that will allow them to say, “Tick. Don’t need to do anything more”. I very much hope they can be tempted in the direction that the noble Baroness has outlined for them.
I also hope that they will do something about birds crashing into glass. It is simple: there are technical solutions, and we can live with them. We ought not to do this to birds. Just change the rules and, over time, we will do much less damage.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, but I ask the Government not to accept it. I do that for two reasons. First, swifts are not the only migratory birds to come back on migration. Secondly, I believe that if the Government conceded to swifts, they would be able to say, “We’ve done something, we’ve pleased the environmental lobby and now we need not do anything more”. That is a typical reaction of government. I am therefore more attracted to Amendments 225 and 227GA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, reminded us that 30 million birds in the UK get killed on migration. In America, the figure is up to 1 billion, and in Canada it is over 40 million. In this country, cats do not cause as many bird deaths, but they are responsible for a significant number. Therefore, we need to look at this subject much more holistically.
On the question of migration, a huge problem was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she discussed the convention centre in Chicago. I would like to add a PS to her story about 1,000 birds in a single night. Since some people have done the simple remedial work of applying small white dots and a two-inch grid pattern to the surface of windows, there has been a 95% reduction in fatalities during the migration period. That is a bonus for the environment and biodiversity that we should aim for.
I will mention one thing that other noble Lords have not mentioned: the planting around buildings. It has been proven that birds get very confused by some types of hedging and trees. When that is reflected in the glass, it disorientates the birds. Although we are all pressing for more trees, shrubbery and greenery, we need to be very careful that we are not building in bird deaths in the process. I hope that the Government will take a holistic look at this and do something that benefits biodiversity and the birds.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on surviving the Defra ministerial massacre. I am absolutely delighted and hope she enjoins all her female colleagues in her attempts to improve the environment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 212, to which I was delighted to add my name. I am conscious that this may seem like a single-minded approach, but it matters in a particular way. I say that because it is widely known that swifts are now on the conservation red list. They moved from green to amber in 2009 and to red in 2015. Between 1995 and 2021 there was a 62% decline. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge set out eloquently that some of this is about habitat and food but also about places for the birds to rest.
When I was in the Commons, I tried to press the case with other Ministers, but also as a Member of Parliament. I used to represent the parts of the east coast of the country that have a very natural stopping point for many migratory birds. In fact, Felixstowe port, in the words of Coldplay, has lights to guide them home. It is a very prominent place for many migratory birds, leading to the excellent and well-known Landguard reserve, as well as the RSPB’s world-famous Minsmere reserve up the coast.
On the subject of light, I am conscious of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. I would not necessarily want us to turn everywhere into a dark space when such lights may well be needed for safety in other commercial activities. But that does not mean we have them just for the sake of it.
On swift bricks, councils can already put in their plan that buildings are supposed to have swift bricks. I know that East Suffolk council has that in its plan, but it does not enforce it. We come back to the age-old arguments, “It’s going to add cost to development”, “It’s not convenient” and all these other things. We need to take action to stop the decline not only of this species but of many others. I am conscious that there is another amendment in this group which refers to a wider element.
The estimated cost of this brick is between £20 and £35. I genuinely do not believe that puts it beyond profitability. Frankly, that would be hard to swallow in terms of consideration of the cost of a particular house. But, as has been said, the Minister, when in opposition, thought this would be a slam dunk. It has already been yet another easy decision for Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State at MHCLG, to make—in the past it was actually MHCLG and probably the Treasury that held these things up.
There is another bird which often nests and is often thought to be similar to a swift. It is the house martin, and all I will say is, give us a happy hour and make sure we can have the swifts going for the future for evermore.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulated the noble Baroness in Grand Committee last week and I am delighted to be able to repeat my congratulations today. It is lovely to see her in her place.
I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 212, moved by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I saw in the press last week that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park had been married, and I assume he is on honeymoon. My noble friend said he was being detained in another place, which makes it sound like a rather interesting honeymoon.
However, moving swiftly on, the swifts are magnificent birds, but swifts in the UK have experienced a severe population decline, with numbers falling by over 60% between 1995 and 2022. That has now placed them on the red list of birds of conservation concern. This alarming drop is primarily due to the loss of suitable nesting sites and buildings, as my noble friend said, and a reduction in their insect food supply. Modern buildings lack the crevices and cavities swifts need, while building renovations and demolitions destroy their existing nests. A widespread lack of insects further threatens their survival, impacting their ability to raise young.
I have the privilege of serving on the Council of Europe, and I go to Strasbourg four times a year. It is amazing the number of swifts one sees there. That is because, in the old part of Strasbourg, near the cathedral in Place Gutenberg, there are thousands of these old-fashioned buildings with cavities, crevices and little garrets, and what I consider to be holes all over the roof, which are perfect for swifts. Last year, for some reason, there were hardly any and we were infested with midges and mosquitoes. This year, one could sit outside with a little glass of wine and watch hundreds of them at dusk, swooping and diving, with no midges or mosquitoes. They had the right facilities for them to nest and they had them there.
The cost of swift bricks is roughly £30. One can get more expensive ones, of course, but they are not necessary. The Government might say that, if they make it compulsory for all buildings to have swift bricks, that will drive up the cost of housing. But not all housing is suitable for these bricks and buildings need to be higher than five metres above ground. Even if all the 300,000 houses were suitable, and if the ideal three boxes per house were installed, we are looking at £90 per house or £18 million for the whole 300,000 homes. The Government’s green levy for their fanatical drive for net zero will add 20% to all heating bills. Last year, it was an extra £30 per household. As from 1 April this year, the average household has had an increase of £9.25 to its monthly bill. That £111 is far in excess of the cost of swift bricks.
The Government are splashing out about £7,500 per household on subsidising heat pumps, and they have paid out more than £148 million for heat pump installations through the boiler upgrade scheme as of May 2024, with additional funding planned to bring the total up to £1.5 billion until March 2028. That is £1.5 billion for inadequate heat pumps, so do not tell us that a £30 brick would drive up housing costs to unacceptable levels. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to that.
As far as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is concerned, I am not fully up to speed on the cost of safety glass, but I can comment on the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Up at our house in Penrith, we plant an awful lot of trees near the window. The trees are full of nesting birds, but we found that the reflection from the glass was causing bird strikes. The problem was quickly solved, because one can get packets of little decals at three for £5 to put on the windows. Since then, it has not been a 90% drop: it has been a 100% drop—no deaths. I am not sure that is a solution for commercial buildings or high-rise ones, but one can stop all these bird deaths in ordinary houses by simple, cheap decals that you can get from the RSPB, and the decals can say anything they like.
On Amendment 338, I can only make a personal comment. If colleagues wish to go to the new government building in Peterborough, a building which houses the Passport Office, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Defra and the JNCC, in the foyer they will find something called the Blencathra—a green wall. This came about when I served on the JNCC a few years ago. The new government building was designed, and late on in the day they shared the design with all the organisations that were to occupy it. They boasted that the windows were 100% net zero, the air conditioning was net zero, and everything else was net zero. I said, “But have you got any greenery in the place?” Ah, no, they had not thought of that. We could not put anything on the roof—it was full of air conditioning and other things—so after a considerable battle we got a green wall inside.
I appreciate that that might not be a full answer to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness. I do not suggest that we should have a compulsory law on this—that would drive up enormous costs—but, if organisations are willing to do it, the solution is quite simple.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate on the planning features around birds and other wildlife. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Blencathra, for their kind welcome of the fact I am still here in front of noble Lords today.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for tabling this amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for introducing it so swiftly and beautifully. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett, for their amendments; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her behalf. These amendments seek to use building regulations to mandate the use of swift bricks; seek to require buildings to include measures to prevent bird fatality; and seek to require developers to use a range of elements to support wildlife.
The protection of species is crucial to ensuring the health of our ecosystems and the growth of our natural capital. I fully support the objective of increasing biodiversity and ensuring that new development contributes positively to nature. The Government acknowledge the dramatic decline of swifts, which we have heard about during this debate, alongside much of our other most precious wildlife. We are committed to driving nature’s recovery while building the homes that we desperately need.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned being converted to swift bricks. I assure him that I have already been converted to them and other building materials that can be used to increase wildlife. What we are looking at here, though, is how we can go about achieving that, not whether we support it in principle; in principle, we do. We do not believe that building regulations are the best route to achieving the objective of protecting species and providing habitats alongside new homes.
This is because building regulations in the UK are focused primarily on safeguarding the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They have not, historically, been applied to the protection of wildlife or biodiversity. Expanding their scope to include measures aimed at conserving species would represent a significant shift in regulatory intent. Such an expansion would also place considerable additional pressure on a system that is already adapting to the enhanced requirements introduced by the Building Safety Act.
The planning system is, we believe, the more appropriate route to secure these outcomes. Existing protections in planning policy support the use of wildlife-friendly features in and around new buildings to improve biodiversity. The national design guidance also promotes biodiversity enhancement through site-specific measures to support biodiversity net gains at the neighbourhood, street and household levels, as well as encouraging the protection and improvement of existing areas of valuable biodiversity—including through wildlife-friendly features.
Many animals in England are already protected by law. How development proposals need to consider these animals varies from species to species. We expect local planning authorities to use the standing advice published by Natural England to assess whether a planning application would harm or disturb a protected species. In particular, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is an offence to kill, injure or disturb wild birds.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I was a bit remiss in not congratulating the Minister on remaining in post. Prime Ministers make, from time to time, crazy decisions—I have seen it happen—but nothing would have been crazier than to remove the noble Baroness from her position. That is why I did not even think about it.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. It is a subject that I care very passionately about. I agree with my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Lucas, but I am testing the Government to see whether they can get one tiny thing through. I think the answer is no—not yet anyway.
Bird-friendly buildings is a really important subject. It does not have to mean that you switch the lights off all the time, it is about reflections and so forth. We may return to this.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra might speculate about where my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is, but I could not possibly comment.
I say to the Minister: in the same way as the swifts return every year, albeit in smaller numbers, this too will return on Report, albeit with greater numbers and more vehemence. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review: rights of wayWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of the provisions in this Act on—(a) access to,(b) enjoyment of, and(c) preservation of,rights of way, especially unrecorded rights of way.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the effect of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way which are due to be extinguished on 31 December 2030.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken in Committee so far, but in my four-minute contribution at Second Reading I raised two issues, which are the subject of these next two amendments. The first may be described as being in the weeds and the other in the stratosphere.
Perhaps I should begin with the weeds. Amendment 213 is about footpaths. I have three asks to make of the Government. The footpath issue is one that a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House have been following—“chasing down” might be a better phrase—for many years. I am therefore grateful for the support of two of the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me to give an apology as she cannot be here this evening. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has left the Chamber because we had extensive debates on the footpath issue when she had her responsibilities as a shadow spokesman before the general election, and I wish her well in her new role.
However, one name is missing from the Government Benches, that of Lord Rosser. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I add a short personal note. Lord Rosser was a doughty supporter of the footpath cause over many years and, despite his increasing frailty and looking exceptionally unwell, he came, possibly to speak for the last time, in support of a regret Motion that I had tabled. It is of course quite right that when one of us leaves your Lordships’ House the water should close over us quietly and soundlessly, but I wanted on this occasion for one last time to record my thanks to Lord Rosser for his support over the years.
With that, to horse. First, I need to declare an interest, as I am a member of the Ramblers, which campaigns on behalf of footpaths and open access. I am currently making use of our footpaths by walking from Land’s End to John O’Groats—in stages, I hasten to add—and I am just reaching Inverness. In the 1,000 or so miles that I have so far covered, I have seen at first hand how our network of public rights of way provides physical and mental support. In effect, it lifts the soul, even if, after seven hours on the road, the feet and the muscles may be a little sore.
The background to this issue is as follows. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required local authorities to provide and prepare official records of public rights of way, known as definitive maps. As a result, some 120,000 miles of rights of way were recorded in England. That leads me to my first ask of the Government: the reason for paragraph (c) in my amendment, “preservation”, is to get the Minister’s commitment that nothing in the Bill will be allowed to end the network of these paths in whole or in part. The key word here is “network” because, if a path can be brought to an end, even for a few hundred yards, the utility and value of the surrounding paths is greatly reduced. Can the Minister confirm that the provisions of the Bill will not put at risk this important national asset, which is the primary means by which the public can get outdoors?
There is a further challenge. While the recording of 120,000 miles of footpaths was a terrific achievement, research suggests that some 40,000 further miles were not recorded and therefore remain unprotected. There are over 3,000 miles in Cornwall and just under 3,000 miles in Herefordshire. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 attempted to bring this issue to a conclusion by setting a deadline for applications to be submitted to local highway authorities for adding these hitherto unrecorded rights of way to the official definitive maps. The deadline was set for 25 years later, 1 January 2026, three months from where we are now. After that date, applications for adding unrecorded public rights of way based on historic evidence will no longer be possible and any of those miles would be lost for ever.
Progress on recording those 20,000 miles was disappointingly slow: first, because local authorities had many other uses for funds and found it hard to justify putting additional resources into this activity, balanced against all those other pressures; secondly, because the actual process of recording is rather clunky and expensive, both financially as well as in management time and effort. I have first-hand experience of that because my family company owns a few acres of agricultural land in Shropshire, where we needed the diversion of a footpath; although it was not contested, it took over three years to achieve. I place on record my thanks to Shropshire County Council and Mr Rodenhurst, who is the county council footpath officer, but he too had to work to an existing system.
Some anecdotal evidence suggests that many councils can process only two or three applications every year. At one point, a working party of interested stakeholders was set up to streamline the system, but it seems to have gone nowhere. Therefore, my second ask of the Minister is whether that working party still exists and whether it has any role in the Government’s thinking on how to speed up this recording process.
Finally, as the deadline of 1 January 2026 became ever closer, I, together with a cross-party group of Members of your Lordships’ House, began to campaign for a better, permanent solution. At first, it looked as though we had had success. In February 2022, the then Conservative Government announced that the deadline would be abolished entirely, but a year later, in March 2023—presumably after lobbying by landowners and farmers—that decision was reversed and, instead, the deadline was extended by regulation by five years, to 1 January 2031. In my view, this is an exercise in pushing the pea around the plate, if ever I saw one.
On Boxing Day 2024, the new Labour Government announced that they would fulfil the prior undertaking of the Conservative Government to repeal the deadline but that they could do so only when, in that hallowed phrase, parliamentary time allows. This Bill provides parliamentary time within which the Government could fulfil that commitment, so my third and final ask of the Minister is whether the Government are prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill to fulfil the commitment they have given to remove the recording deadline for ever. If the Government cannot accept and answer my questions, perhaps they could accept Amendment 213, which provides for a review in six months. That at least enables your Lordships’ House to monitor progress on this important topic. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, having heard such eloquent advocacy for swifts and other birds, I will make a case for humans in Amendment 213. I will explain. First, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for tabling this amendment. I am very keen to support him.
My particular interest is actively to promote the case for the restoration of ancient rights of way—the unregistered ones that we have heard about already. I declare my interest as the owner of a property, a family farm, with a right of way laced right through the middle. I am also grateful to the Ramblers for its briefing.
In considering this, we should start from the premise that rights of way, whether registered or not, are a national asset. They belong to the nation—to citizens and individuals. No reasons were given except for the need for certainty as to whether these unregistered rights of way would be terminated or disallowed in future. The only certainty was that UK citizens would be stripped of their property rights because, in that rediscovered but unregistered place, these rights of way would have been disallowed. What possible benefit to the community arises from disallowing the registration of rights of way?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 213 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which probes the potential impacts of the Bill on rights of way, including those currently unrecorded and due to be extinguished at the end of 2030. He raises an important and timely point. The matter of unrecorded rights of way has long been a subject of interest and concern, particularly among landowners, local authorities and the walking public. The 2026 cut-off date originally proposed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, later extended to 31 December 2030, was intended to provide certainty and finality. This amendment, while probing in nature, rightly encourages the Government to clarify how the provisions of the Bill will interact with that approaching deadline, particularly with the ongoing digitisation and modernisation of the definitive map process and how planning reforms may affect local authority resourcing for such work.
While there are undoubtedly historic rights of way that are not currently identified, mapped and protected, given the effort that has been put into doing so by various organisations perhaps one might assume that those long-unused rights of way are defunct. Rights of way were created through constant use establishing those rights. Surely if they are no longer used and are forgotten, their original purpose and right is gone. Rights of way were rarely established through leisure use, but were commonly the way that travel and commerce was conducted in this country. It is unhelpful to planning and infrastructure delivery, as well as to farmers and land managers, that claims can be brought at any time and can consume considerable time and resource to resist. I encourage the Government to stick to the existing deadline.
Amendment 213 prompts a worthwhile discussion. I think the idea of a review in six months is worth considering to ensure that our rights of way are properly protected. I thank my noble friend for raising the matter, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his amendment, which seeks to probe the effects of the Bill on rights of way, including unrecorded rights of way. I thank him for his kind comments about Lord Rosser; we still miss him very much, so I am grateful.
As we heard, the Government announced on Boxing Day 2024 their intention to repeal the cut-off date of 1 January 2031 for recording historic rights of way. This means that paths used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians can continue to be officially recorded after this date and will not be lost to the public. This is a significant step in preserving access to well-used but often unrecorded paths across England, many of which have been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, for hundreds of years.
Local highway authorities have statutory duties to record and maintain public rights of way, allowing them to be accessed and enjoyed by the public. They must also have a rights of way improvement plan which explains how improvements will be made to public rights of way, preserving them and providing a better experience for users. Given the statutory duty placed on local authorities to maintain and protect public rights of way, an additional review is not necessary.
A thorough and meaningful review would also not be possible within six months of publication of the Act. Local authorities are already handling a significant volume of unrecorded rights of way registrations, and the requirement to conduct a review would result in further delays to this process. In addition, the repeal of the cut-off date means that historic public rights of way can still be officially recorded, so will not be lost but can continue to be enjoyed by the public.
I will pick up a couple of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I will check whether the working party is still in place; I do not know the answer to that. I hope it is, because working parties like that help us to shape government policy. On the question of why we should not use this Bill for the repeal, I suspect that a deal of consultation would have to be carried out, and that is probably why it is not in this Bill, but I will respond in writing to him on that point.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; I say to my noble friend Lord Roborough that the reality is that unrecorded does not mean unused. I mentioned that over 3,000 miles of footpath in Cornwall and about 2,700 in Herefordshire are used but unrecorded, so he is not quite right to say that if they are unrecorded they are unused. There are certainly some that have not been recorded that are unused, and I understand the force of his point. But I do not think it gets to the nub of the matter to say that, because they have not been recorded, they must be unused.
I am also grateful to the Minister for her reaffirming the intention to bring forward legislation that will enable this cut-off debt to be removed for ever. I am sorry she cannot find a way to put it into the Bill, on the grounds that it will be gratifying to have a conclusion to this as soon as possible. But two-thirds of a loaf is better than no bread, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review: impact on food and water security(1) At the end of the period of 12 months, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing the total area, in hectares, of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act—(a) in the previous twelve months, and(b) cumulatively since the Act came into force.(2) The report must include the total area, in hectares, of any land taken out of food production and used for—(a) the construction of houses and associated infrastructure,(b) the construction of reservoirs or other water catchment devices,(c) the installation of solar panels, and(d) the production of maize and other crops grown to support the generation of electricity.(3) The report must provide an assessment of the increased risk, if any, to the food and water security of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provides annual updates on any agricultural land lost as a result of this Bill and any consequent risks to this country’s food and water security.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, we now move from the weeds to the stratosphere. I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Minister and her department, which is being asked to provide housing for a very large number of additional people without upsetting those people already here, whose communities and immediate environment will be radically reshaped for ever.
It is worth putting a couple of numbers on the record as background to this issue and indeed to my amendment. We are expecting the population of this country to increase by 6.6 million people by 2035—that is equivalent to two and a half cities the size of Greater Manchester. By the 2040s, this country will have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe; by the way, Germany is one and a half times our size in geographical area. So, as regards population pressure, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Let me be clear that this is absolutely not a rant or an attack on refugees and asylum seekers. While there are clearly many knotty problems to be addressed, those unfortunate people make up less than 10% of the total increase in our population. The major reasons behind the growth are British industry’s insatiable desire to recruit overseas—the “default option”, as the Migration Advisory Committee has described it—and British higher education, which has built its business model on overseas recruitment, many of whom then morph into our permanent population during or at the end of their degrees. The consequences of these increases and decisions ricochet around Whitehall and impact on nearly every aspect of our national life. For the Minister’s department, the policy about housing can best be described as, “Please empty the bath, but you can’t touch the taps”. That is why the Minister and the Government find this such a difficult area to tackle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading, no one anywhere in the Government—this Government or the previous Government—is responsible for joining up the dots. Amendment 214 is an attempt, for once, to join two of the dots, because it is about the security of this nation’s food supplies. In February 1945, with the war in Europe nearly won and the U-boat menace history, the Cabinet was alarmed to receive a report that the country had food reserves for only about two months. Now, 80 years later, how long would our food reserves last? Essentially, they would last for three or four days. Modern supply chains are run to minimise the use of working capital. It is believed that they carry about three days’ supplies at any one time, a situation which some have described as being nine meals from anarchy.
We currently grow just over half the food that we need as a nation. This Bill, when enacted, will undoubtedly result in the loss of yet more land capable of producing food, as we cover it with houses and solar panels and we grow maize and similar crops not to feed people but to feed biodigesters to generate electricity in pursuit of net zero. All the while, our population is growing by half a million a year, and we are in a confused, uncertain and ever more dangerous world. Yet with the exception of our farmers, and groups such as the NFU, the discussion of food security, our ability to feed our population, is nowhere to be seen.
What is the reason for the silence on this critical issue? Essentially, it is because it falls between two stools of different government departments. Today we are discussing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is the child of the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has no knowledge of or responsibility for the provision of food. Food is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but Defra has no influence on planning decisions—which are likely to impact directly on its areas of responsibility. My amendment is an attempt to join up these two dots by seeking to require the Secretary of State for this department to provide annually an account of the land being taken out of food production.
I will say a brief word about why food security should be an issue of increasing concern. For the past couple of centuries, the economic theory of comparative advantage has dominated Treasury thinking and, in turn, has had major influence on government departments’ policies. The theory of comparative advantage argues that the country will be better off if it specialises in producing things that it is best at producing rather than trying to produce everything that it needs. If you accept this theory, it follows that we do not need to worry that we produce only half the food we eat; we can buy the remainder on the world market more cheaply than we can produce it ourselves.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which my noble friend has proposed with a very powerful argument indeed. He is not asking for a stop to housing or these other developments; he is asking for an audit so we have the information to hand.
I want to make just three quick points. Quite often, when it comes to housing, there is not a choice as to where the housing goes for obvious reasons. Most new housing developments will be adjacent to existing settlements; they will be adjacent to towns, villages and often, inevitably, they will be put on really good, grade 1 agricultural land that will get gobbled up. To some extent, that is accepted.
On food security, my noble friend made a very good point about the historic context and raised briefly the Ukraine war. One of the lessons of the Ukraine war is the fact that we cannot take our food security for granted. He touched on solar arrays, and I suggest to the Minister that, in building out solar arrays, we indeed have choice. We do not have so much choice over housing, but surely we have choice over where we put these solar arrays.
I just wanted to tell the Minister what is going on in part of my old constituency of North West Norfolk. There is a large wave of planning applications for solar arrays along the A47 corridor between Swaffham and Dereham. Much of that is going to take in grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land. The serious worry I have is that we are not talking about willing seller, willing buyer—or willing farmer, willing buyer. We are talking about tenant farmers who are going to have their livelihoods taken away. We are talking also about some farmers who may have holdings adjacent to larger landowners who are putting their land forward for this development. The companies in question proposing the developments have come forward with a threat of compulsory purchase. We are moving away from the willing seller, willing buyer concept—at the same time putting at risk a huge amount of really good agricultural land.
The Minister should look at this amendment in the spirit in which it has been drafted. We are not trying to order the Government what to do. My noble friend is not trying to stop these developments. Of course, he wants some of them modified, but we need to have that information. We need to have a proper audit, so I support this clause wholeheartedly. I very much hope that the Minister will realise that the potential damage to our farming communities is huge—damage is being done already.
We have sites such as warehouses on industrial estates—go around any new industrial estate; you will not see a single solar panel. Look at a modern school or hospital; a new hospital is to be built in my old constituency, and there is no provision there for solar panels on what are to be flat roofs. Yet down the road, we are going to see the demise of really first-class agricultural land. The Minister needs to get a grip of this and, above all, have information to hand, so that we can be properly informed in future, so I support my noble friend.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment 214. My noble friend nearly said that we are no more than three meals away from societal breakdown, but we are—and, in the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one requirement. Land is the principal resource that provides bread, beer, biscuits, as well as broccoli, and they are not making land anymore.
I am concerned, because the land use framework that has been proposed by the Government contemplates that fully 9% of our farmland will be used for non-growing purposes. Your Lordships will have heard me say before, in respect of solar panels particularly, that it is beyond careless to allow the best land to be consumed for non-farmland purposes before the worst land is exhausted. Last year, the national wheat yield was down 20% on account of wet weather. This year, there is an impairment in many areas on account of the dry weather. The weather changes, but we cannot be careless about our food supply.
The better news is that we have recently heard encouraging noises from former Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been. It is noteworthy that, while we no longer have a Minister for Agriculture, we have a Minister for Food Security, and I think we should all welcome that, provided that the title of food security flows through into recognising the importance to national security, ensuring that the greatest proportion of the food in this country can meet our needs.
I had a commercial meeting this morning with one of the UK’s largest participants in the agricultural supply chain in this country. Its agricultural director gave me what I felt was a stunning statistic, and I will relay it to noble Lords. He said that, over the last 30 years, the amount of arable farmland in this country has diminished by 30%. I questioned him: “You mean 1% per year, each year, for the last 30 years?”, and he said, “Yes, we used to count on a 15 million tonne a year wheat harvest, now we’re lucky to get 12”. These are big reductions with large consequences, so I enthusiastically endorse Amendment 214. If we are going to have a Minister for Food Security, doing this arithmetic is going to be an essential part of her task—how else can she benchmark her success? I think the amendment is fully in tune with the direction this Government are going in.
Had it been my amendment, I would have probably asked for the data to be embellished by an assessment of the underlying agricultural land quality—the ALC, or agricultural land classification—so that we could work out not just the number of hectares that are lost but how they apportioned between the best and most versatile land versus the lower ranks. I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider enhancing the amendment with agricultural land classification, if he sustains it on Report. Otherwise, I give it my full support in Committee.
Lord Deben (Con)
I very much want to support this amendment, because it is asking for information, and one of the problems we have in this country is that when we do not like the answers, we do not ask the question. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue here.
I am rather in favour of properly placed solar farms, but I use the wording “properly placed”. I also think that, in many ways, at least you can get rid of them. The problem with building houses is that you cannot, and I am very concerned about the way in which we constantly use greenfield sites instead of insisting on the development of already used land. I have to say that this Government have really not faced up to the reality, which is that the housebuilding industry does not like anything but a greenfield site and will take those long before it will try to develop inside our already used towns and the like.
This is not only bad for food security but bad for the environment, because it means that people, instead of living relatively hugger-mugger, able to live and move within the same area, have in fact to use transport to get anywhere. In Suffolk, where I come from, I see this all the time: more and more people are commuting from villages which have never had the jobs, and will not have the jobs, to towns increasingly far away. So, the issue of housebuilding is crucial, and we have not thought it through. Merely saying “1.5 million new homes over five years” does not actually face the real issue.
I declare an interest as a small organic farmer. I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to face food security. I am not sure that I myself would have chosen Angela Eagle for that job. The fact of the matter is that it is a very important job, but it is not one that is being faced up to. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I was interviewed by Peter Jay, the cleverest man in Europe, and he said to me, “I don’t know why we have a Minister of Agriculture, because we can always buy food elsewhere in the world”. That is the ignorant position, which I am afraid has been carried on either publicly or privately, and not only by this Government, but I fear by previous Governments too.
It is a serious matter that no member of this Cabinet has real agricultural connections of any kind. No member represents a fully agricultural seat, although I am pleased to see that the new Secretary of State for Defra—who is an extremely intelligent and useful addition to the Cabinet—has the most agricultural seat of any Cabinet Minister: Wycombe. Anyone who knows where Wycombe is knows that the agricultural bit is ancillary rather than central.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly remind the Committee, and also the Minister, that much of this could be avoided by implementing the land use framework approach to land use, which is a method and tool intended entirely at various scales—national, local, regional and on individual land holdings—to balance all these competing demands for land. I am very much looking forward to it coming out, hopefully before this Christmas, but noble Lords have heard my Christmas speech before.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made the point that we on these Benches would wish to make.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and thank him for bringing forward what is, I believe, a thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Government provide annual updates on agricultural land lost as a result of the Bill, along with any consequent risks to the UK’s food and water security.
We have heard, both in and beyond this Chamber, growing concern about the pressures being placed on agricultural land—particularly the cumulative effect of development, including infrastructure and renewable energy projects, on land that has long supported our domestic food production. This is not an abstract concern. Recent debates around the siting of solar farms on high-grade best and most versatile agricultural land have brought this issue into sharp relief. Although renewable energy is vital for our long-term sustainability, it must not come at the cost of food security.
Food security is a strategic national interest. The experience of recent global shocks, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, has reminded us just how important it is to maintain a strong, resilient domestic food supply. Once high-quality agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered. We must therefore be careful stewards of this finite resource, particularly the best and most versatile land, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out.
My noble friend’s amendment rightly presses the Government to monitor and report on these risks with due seriousness. The principle of ensuring that we do not undermine our food and water security through planning reforms is one that I believe all sides of this House can support. If I may provide some reassurances to my noble friends, global food production has grown at 0.7% on average per annum for decades, in line with global population growth. That is on stable acres, with lost acres in some regions of the world balanced by other regions, such as Brazil. Acres of land that are lost in this country to development are most likely being replaced by the Cerrado, and possibly even rainforest, being cleared in Brazil. There is a serious leakage issue when we lose our agricultural land. On that, I highlight my register of interests, including as a shareholder of SLC Agrícola in Brazil.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment and to hearing how the Government intend to safeguard these critical national interests as the Bill progresses. I also support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the land use framework.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report
“detailing the total area … of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act”,
as well as an assessment of any increase in risk to the water and food security of the UK.
As noble Lords know, the measures in this Bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery. In other words, they are levers within an existing planning system. It is therefore impossible to measure whether any land use change from development is as a result of specific measures in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government already publish regular reports on land use change and food security. These include: statistics on land use change from agricultural land to residential use every three years; a report by Natural England on agricultural land take to development over the period 2013 to 2022, following previous reviews undertaken by Defra; annual analysis on agricultural land use change through the annual June survey of agriculture and horticulture; statutory annual analysis of agricultural statistics through Agriculture in the United Kingdom; and statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years. The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK.
To address the concern driving this amendment, I reassure noble Lords once again that the Government are clear that food security is national security. We absolutely understand that point, made powerfully by noble Lords during this debate. In July, Defra published the good food cycle as part of the UK food strategy. It outlined the development of work on sustainable, resilient domestic production of food. There are planning policy measures in place to ensure that non-agricultural land is encouraged over agricultural land.
As I have mentioned a couple of times already today, the National Planning Policy Framework also safeguards the best and most versatile land, which is land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.
Furthermore, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government consulted on land use in England from January to April this year. The responses are informing the preparation of the land use framework, which will be published later this year. It will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land.
The Government do not believe that new water resources infrastructure, such as new strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions, will threaten food security. Of course, a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies, and the National Farmers’ Union and farmers are working with the Environment Agency and water companies to help us develop water resources.
The Government also do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mount solar PV panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. The Solar Roadmap also sets out how much land we estimate could be taken up by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in the most ambitious—
Lord Deben (Con)
The Minister has said “the Government do not believe” three times now. Would it not be a good idea to check whether or not their belief was true? She also said something really frightening. She said, “Because this Act is in addition to other things, it is impossible to see what its effect would be”. What kind of legislation can it be to put before the House when the Government cannot tell what its effect is, nor are prepared to measure what its effect is when it takes place? I find this very difficult to understand.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I set out for the noble Lord all the measurements already taken, in respect of the take of agricultural land. That is an important part of the system. As regards solar generation, the Solar Roadmap sets out how much land we estimate could be taken by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in ambitious scenarios, we expect only up to 0.4% of total UK land to be occupied. Solar farms can operate alongside farming activities but, to answer noble Lords’ points about the provision of solar on non-domestic buildings, we will be setting that out shortly, as we have done already for domestic buildings. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Bellingham about the importance of audit, my noble friend Lord Fuller—I am sure that this amendment could be improved with a bit expertise and a sharp pencil—and my noble friend Lord Deben. Building on his question about water, Southern Water is making plans to introduce 40 billion litres in summer months from next year, because we do not have enough water. My noble friend’s points about water are absolutely on the button and, of course, he was right to say that the Minister’s speech—and I absolutely know that she means well—was aspirational; it was what we hope to do.
I say only that until we are able to get our arms around the whole of this issue, join the dots, look at it, think about it and explain it to the British people, we are going to have a very difficult time. It is not a party-political issue. It is an issue for our society. Earlier this summer, I published a booklet called Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. I got the help of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and his Common Good Foundation, a centre-left think tank, and I got nine experts without any political background. What they concluded, absolutely, was that the way we are handling this, in silos, is completely hopeless. Each silo may be reporting brilliantly about what is happening in its silo, but no one is joining the dots together, and this is beginning to seep into society.
Up until now, this has been a fringe effort on the extreme left and the extreme right, seeking to make trouble. If noble Lords have a moment, they should look at today’s Times and Trevor Phillips’ article. He says this about yesterday’s march:
“The usual suspects, left and right, who always show up at events like this, took the opportunity to throw bottles at police … But for the most part, the 150,000 people who showed up to march the mile or so from Waterloo, across Lambeth Bridge and past the Palace of Westminster to Whitehall, were unaware of any commotion. Only the hard core stayed to hear Robinson’s peroration. This was not an angry, activist crowd. And therein lies the danger to our democracy. When ordinary people are ready to brave the first cold weekend of the autumn at the behest of a serial convict and self-confessed fraudster, something is very rotten in the state of Britain. These are the people you meet at the country pub with their dogs, or in a queue for drinks at half-time”.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The Companion says that, whether or not a noble Lord wishes to push their amendment to a vote, they have to be brief. We are going here into areas that are not affected by the amendments, and the noble Lord has been speaking for three minutes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I have been commenting on the comments made by various noble Lords. I just wanted to be clear about how this is part of a wider issue of which this Committee and the country need to be aware. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now but give notice that I may wish to bring it back on Report.
Lord Cromwell
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including establishing a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have added their names to my amendment; they both apologise for being unable to be present in the Committee today.
This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory purchase. It is widely accepted that, provided it is carried out appropriately, the state should have the right to acquire people’s homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment will not reopen the whole debate around that issue—I hope that buys me a few extra minutes.
Compulsory purchase was established on three assumptions: that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest; that it would make it possible to do that at a cost below market rates; and, importantly, that it would be a last resort if a voluntary sale could not be agreed—or so the theory went. However, anyone who is familiar with the process and practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick or cost effective, with timelines running into years and with the costs of public inquiries, surveyors, lawyers and other actors on both sides.
It is widely acknowledged by professional agents—regardless of which side they work for—that, contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, the costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis. A consensus is often achievable, but only if the acquirer’s agent works with the seller rather than acting, frankly, as a bully boy for the Government.
The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group. I will not cover it again beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up—I will not use the word “sold”—at well below its market value is, of course, attractive to those with the compulsory power but brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.
So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the Government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, to give up their businesses and their land, and to do so below market prices. Agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial entities governed by financial and time-related performance targets.
Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government-backed agents and ordinary citizens have created a real, growing problem around the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities. Agents’ ability to compel a sale means all too often that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those whom they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless and cannot realistically afford to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusion: the lack of proper constraints means that a culture has widely grown up of the strong-arming and intimidation of those who are forced to sell by government-appointed agents.
There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes shy of talking about, some of which has been referred to by others, of the acquiring authority then selling on the land for commercial purposes as a whole or in parts at full market value and pocketing the profits—with the agents, of course, paid to arrange the disposals.
To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I am saying or who is not involved in compulsory purchase, here are three quick live cases that I am aware of and, for clarity, in which I have no interests to declare. In the first case, both sides of a transaction had already agreed voluntarily to sell one field and give a right of access over an adjacent one. But at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue a plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement. When this was pointed out, the acquirer’s agent immediately cut off communication and went to use compulsory purchase on all the land.
In the second case, a farmer was approached by an infrastructure provider for initial surveys. As the land was designated ecologically sensitive, he instructed an agent to prepare a bespoke licence agreement to give access to the provider. The infrastructure provider abruptly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice, and the developer’s subsequent trespass, then went on the wrong property and was not subject to discussion. Legal proceedings followed, which were inevitably costly for both sides and created substantial delays.
Case 3 is a simple quote from one forced seller:
“The bypass went straight through the middle of our farm taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid, we will have to pay capital gains tax (at the new increased rate) on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and pay us in return a fraction of what it’s worth? … capital projects need to be built for the benefit of the nation, but surely in a decent, fair country, those concerned should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is occupied”.
I remind noble Lords that they were still waiting eight years later. I underline that there are many similar stories across this country.
Finally, I cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section, which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land through the middle of their farms, commandeered by HS2 but still not yet handed back. Matters are made worse with HS2 by the splitting of responsibilities between the Treasury and Department for Transport, with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders, having been given three months’ notice to get out, then not being paid for up to nine months. As one affected party put it—this is a different case—
“7 years after they unilaterally took our land we are still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts”.
So what rules are there? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published baseline standards that it considers should apply to people acting for the acquiring authorities and the claimants. While I urge the Minister to look at and publicly endorse these standards, RICS has jurisdiction over its members only—not, for instance, over a non-member profession or a project management team.
Furthermore, crucially, these and other existing guidance rules do not cover two things that loom large in practical compulsory purchase experience: defining and preventing bullying tactics, and failure by agents or the acquiring bodies themselves to make prompt payment when due. We cannot go on in denial of this problem. That is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice for compulsory purchase: to negotiate and agree values et cetera in good faith, with the possibility of compulsion genuinely as the last resort rather than the starting point, and to pay full value in advance of taking possession, as is systematically the case in the commercial world.
I pose two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house, land or business only to find themself with no money to buy another house due to non-payment by the acquirer, or to have part or all of their business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the Government’s announcement that they will issue financial penalties to persistently late-paying businesses should include penalties on late-paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Government?
This amendment, by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice, would provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems that I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, I am always concerned not just about our making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement, and it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my two questions, and I ask the Government to accept this simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, particularly before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers to Natural England. Finally, I should mention that this is very likely to come back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, before I introduce my amendment in this group, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late payment. I will wait for the Minister to respond to that. There is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord explained, between individuals and the state if the state does not play fairly by the rules.
Amendment 219 in my name and cosigned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is on the face of it quite radical. In fact, however, all it would do is put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permissions they have obtained. Planning consents already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable. If a housebuilder is seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least to start construction.
Members on all sides know that there is a desperate need for more housing. All political parties have made the case for more housing, in different numbers per annum, but this is not about the numbers game; it is the building of them that is important. The ONS has estimated that there are already 1.2 million outstanding permissions for housing units, as yet unbuilt. I will not use the term “land banking” because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on. Obviously, the reasons are quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks; nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed Amendment 219. It would introduce a new clause so that where there is permission for a development of 100 homes or more and it is not used, it is use it or lose it, and within the applicable period there is a justifiable case for compulsory purchase of the land. I do not think anyone in your Lordships’ House is going to disagree that we have a housing crisis and a broken housing system. I point noble Lords to a recent “Big Read” in the Financial Times titled “Making British homes affordable again”, which focused on a number of issues, including the role of financial deregulation in the massive escalation of home prices.
Here, we are talking about the plan where the land is identified and everyone agrees this is the way forward, and then we run into the private housebuilders, where the legal obligation of the managers is to make money. They have no legal obligation to build homes: the law says to make as much money as you possibly can.
I would be very tempted to use the term land banking to describe managers who just sit on land and wait until they can make more money. That means that homes are not built, and they are needed in places where people want to live. The amendment does not force anything but allows the possibility of a CPO, to take this forward to get those homes built. Surely, that is what some communities are desperately aching for.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this important group of amendments about planning consents and compulsory purchase. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 217, so convincingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It seeks to ensure that acquiring authorities and those acting on their behalf adhere to the normal code of conveyancing practice—the same principles that would apply in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is a sensible and pragmatic proposal. Compulsory purchase is, by its nature, an intrusive power and must always be exercised with care, transparency and fairness. Ensuring that conveyancing practice aligns with what would be expected in an open market transaction will help to build trust and minimise disputes between landowners and acquiring authorities. It is essential that landowners do not continue to be disadvantaged and mistreated through the CPO process, as the noble Lord described.
Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, proposes a new clause that would make land subject to automatic consideration for compulsory purchase under the Housing Act 1985 where permission for a development of 100 homes or more has not been acted on within the relevant period. She touches on an interesting and widely debated issue: the problem of land banking—if I may use that term—and delays in delivering housing once planning permission has been granted. Her amendment raises the question of how we might create stronger incentives to build out permissions in a timely manner, particularly where housing need is acute.
Before considering supporting this amendment, we would need to understand how widespread this practice, as the noble Baroness describes, really is. The figure of 1.2 million homes consented but unbuilt is bandied around. However, how many of these developments are unviable due to the Section 106 costs, community infrastructure levies and biodiversity net gain costs that are put on them? How many of these homes are stalled in negotiations around the details of implementing those consents? How many are stalled due to other issues outside developer or landowner control? I am not convinced that land banking is necessarily such a widespread issue as she contends, but I am very willing to listen to evidence. I would be grateful to the Minister for any information she can share with us.
It is worth bearing in mind that housebuilders are businesses: they have obligations to their staff and their shareholders, and they need to have a build programme that ensures they know they can employ their staff over a multi-year period and develop profits which allow returns to shareholders. The shareholders are often pension funds and other such institutional investors in this country. The principle of housebuilders making profits is important. Where a developer does have more short-term supply ready to build on its balance sheet, in most cases it will be because it is building out sites in markets that can absorb only a certain number of units each year without undermining prices to the detriment of the local community. Housebuilders also generally have a 15% return on capital employment commitment to their shareholders. That means that if they are holding land off the market, they need to be very confident that they are making more than 15% per annum doing that, otherwise they are letting their shareholders down. The financial incentives for land banking are not clear.
I would be most interested to hear if the Minister can identify what land banking is really happening in this country, where developers or landowners are holding on to consented land that could be built on right now without impacting on local housing prices. I very much look forward to her reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for putting his name to the amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for ably moving it. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their participation in this interesting debate, which has raised some key issues.
Amendment 217 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a new statutory code of practice for all acquiring authorities when exercising compulsory purchase powers for planning and development purposes. The statutory code of practice would be enforceable by a mechanism set out in regulations required to be published by the Government, and there would be penalties for non-compliance.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government understand the concerns behind the amendment. We recognise that compulsory purchase proposals can lead to periods of uncertainty and anxiety for those involved, whether that is prior to, during or after the making of a CPO. However, the Government consider the proposed code of practice to be unnecessary. First, government guidance, last updated in January this year, states that acquiring authorities should undertake early engagement with landowners and identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the impacts of their schemes. Where this is not done, CPOs are at risk of failing.
Secondly, when making and confirming CPOs, both acquiring and confirming authorities should be sure that the purposes for which the CPO is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. As we have already discussed, particular consideration should be given to the provisions of Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the convention.
In addition, acquiring authorities should consider the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 when making a CPO and have regard to the needs of meeting the aims of that Act. The Health and Safety Executive has also publicly stated that employers have a duty to protect the health not only of their staff but of other people—for example, stakeholders and those who they do business with or otherwise impact, such as landowners. This principle would apply to acquiring authorities undertaking CPOs.
Furthermore, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to, has published the professional standards expected of its members involved in the valuation of compulsory purchase compensation. These standards lay out the ethical conduct and competence expected of RICS members.
I will comment on a couple of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He raised some issues and some terrible examples of things that can go wrong. On recourse, if it is a local authority that is the acquiring agency, the appellant can appeal to the monitoring officer. Landowners can challenge a CPO in court and can make referrals to the Upper Tribunal.
The noble Lord asked that they be paid promptly, and I agree with him on that point. As regards ensuring the prompt payment of compensation, a person who is entitled to compulsory purchase compensation may request an advance payment of that compensation. If an advance payment is requested, the acquiring authority is obliged to make the payment once it has begun implementing the CPO: either 90% of the agreed total compensation sum or 90% of the acquiring authority’s estimate of the total compensation payable. I hope that is some reassurance for him. This amendment would add duplication and complexity to the CPO process, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives of making the process more efficient to deliver benefits in the public interest more quickly.
Amendment 219 seeks to ensure that there is an automatic compelling public interest case for the compulsory purchase of land where permission has not begun within an applicable period for developments of 100 houses or more. I reassure the House, as I stated when debating the topic of land banking last week, that I fully agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. The Government are committed to making sure that planning permissions are translated into homes, and developers must do all they can to deliver.
However, I believe that the amendment would be disproportionate and might have a chilling effect on development, as developers and landowners might be unwilling to make planning applications if they risk losing their land if the planning permission is not implemented, for any reason. Instead, as I set out earlier this week, we published in May an important working paper on speeding up build-out, which sets out a more proportionate, effective and comprehensive approach. This includes better transparency of build-out rates; new powers for local authorities to decline to determine applications from developers who have built out slowly; a stronger emphasis on mixed-use tenures; and the exploration of a potential delayed-homes penalty. Of course, that would be a last resort, but it would be useful to have it in the toolbox.
I want to highlight in particular that the working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land through a power to conditionally confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this in the public interest. We are now analysing the responses to the working paper and we will set out our next steps in due course. However, I again emphasise that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build-out of the housing development we all want to see. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their comments on and support for my amendment.
I am also very grateful to the Minister for her thoughts. However, given that the amendment’s intention is to assist the Bill’s effectiveness, I had hoped for a rather more supportive approach. The Minister’s reference to a “period of uncertainty” for those affected was an understatement. The reality of the behaviours of agents acting for authorities with the power of compulsory purchase behind them is a good deal more combative than that. Existing standards are simply not adequate and not sufficiently enforced. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I anticipate returning with it on Report.
“Party Wall etc. Act 1996: review(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 as it relates to planning and development.(2) The review must include—(a) a consideration of whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices,(b) a summary of all correspondence to date related to the implementation of the Act as it relates to planning and development which is held by the relevant government department and its predecessor departments,(c) consultation with industry bodies related to the construction and maintenance of, and negotiation and litigation in respect of, party walls, in relation to planning and development,(d) consultation with members of the public who have made use of provisions of the Act within the last five years in relation to planning and development, and (e) recommendations on how the Act could be amended to ensure that its provisions, as far as they relate to planning and development —(i) are consistent with human rights legislation,(ii) are consistent with current planning and development practices, and(iii) uphold the principle that no criminal damage, trespass or interference should occur in relation to a person’s property.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, clarifying whether the Act is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether that Act could be amended in order to update its position in planning and development processes.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 221 and 223, which are in my name. Before I do so, I should perhaps remind the Committee of the interest I declared at Second Reading: I have been the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years. That has brought to my attention the whole issue of the practicality of the party wall Act.
Both amendments deal with the issue of party walls, which is particularly pertinent in London and other cities where residential buildings either adjoin or are close to other housing. Amendment 221 calls for a review of the party wall Act. However, I will deal with Amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else’s house without their permission. That simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door.
The oft-used quote, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, comes to mind. We all presume that we have property rights and, if we own a home, that we should be able to live in it without interference. I am not a human rights expert, and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords who are, so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. However, it is my understanding that human rights law protects against interference with property. That is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 protects the right to
“the peaceful enjoyment of … possessions”
and Article 8
“protects your right to respect for your … home”.
Someone else interfering with the foundations of a house causes stress and anxiety to the owner, because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact, there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and, in some rare cases, actually collapsing. I understand that at least one fatality has been caused.
This is not the first time this issue has been raised in the House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, put forward a Private Member’s Bill—the Planning (Subterranean Development) Bill—in 2015 to address this very issue. Most of the interference with other people’s foundations comes about because of basements being dug or floors lowered. Having personally been on the receiving end of this, I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes, to which I and many others have been subjected. It is therefore time to stop others in the future being affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else’s property without their permission.
This brings me to Amendment 221, which calls for a review of the Party Wall etc. Act. This Act was bought in as a Private Member’s Bill in 1996 by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I understand that it was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and to deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected. I understand that this was bought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in the Act are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage—sometimes criminal damage—trespass and nuisance may occur.
Moreover, the party wall Act appears to take this work out of planning, so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to stop the work, even where it may adversely affect their property. This unfairness is exacerbated by the way that surveyors have interpreted this Act. Although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client the surveyors choose to act neutrally, often refusing the adjoining owner any input or say about what happens to their property—while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do.
It is almost 30 years since the Act was passed. There has not been any post-legislative scrutiny and there has been no review. I tabled a number of Questions on this issue in October last year, asking whether the Government would conduct a review. In July 2021, Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape produced Bunkering Down, a report which cited that 7,328 basements had been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying that these have now become
“as normal as loft conversions”.
The department has, by its own admission, received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public alike concerning the efficacy and application of the Act over the years. Any review or consultation must include this correspondence in its evidence.
I thank the Minister, who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights. People need to be reassured that their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I hope that, if the Minister does not feel that she can accept this amendment, she will commit to a consultation and a review forthwith. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling Amendments 221 and 223 regarding the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which is an important piece of legislation providing a legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners concerning shared walls.
Amendment 221 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party wall Act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it needs amending to update its position in planning and development processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice. I therefore hope that the Government take this amendment seriously.
Amendment 223 seeks to ensure that the structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the permission of neighbouring property owners who may be affected by the development rights conferred by this Act. This amendment clearly aims to uphold people’s existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I look forward to the Government addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for her amendments relating to party walls and for meeting with me to help me understand the issues that she has faced relating to this.
Amendment 221 seeks to create a legal duty to review the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The party wall Act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings. While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation, it has been the view of successive Governments since the late 1990s that the party wall Act does, indeed, deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication and agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure, while the Building Regulations establish the minimum legal standards and functional requirements in new building work.
The party wall Act already requires that the owner of a building carrying out work under the Act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating: the name and address of the building owner proposing the work; the nature and particulars of the proposed work, including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and the date on which the proposed work will begin.
Amendment 223 seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall Act. As I mentioned, the party wall Act provides a framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, to protect neighbouring buildings from the impact of building works and hold those completing works accountable for any negative impact. Ensuring structural compliance when undertaking work is already regulated under Structure: Approved Document A of the Building Regulations. Any development work must comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. Amending the party wall Act will therefore have no regulatory effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already regulated for. The party wall Act should therefore continue to provide a robust framework for preventing and resolving disputes when they arise in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings.
I accept that there are occasions when things go wrong and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with the noble Baroness, but for all the reasons I have set out, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am slightly mystified by the phrase that the Act provides a robust framework for resolving disputes. As somebody who has had party wall notices served on me, I do not see any mechanism for resolving disputes except that the developer can actually just do the work—there is no mechanism for the adjoining owner to object and stop the work, so I do not think it actually does resolve disputes. I hear what she says about structural compliance. Often, people carrying out the development get a building inspector from outside the council, and there is no requirement for them to speak to the adjoining owner, even when they ask whether the work has been carried out correctly, because they say that they are not their client; it is the developer who is the client. So, I query some of those statements and I very much hope that there can be a review of this Act. I would be delighted to continue the conversation with the Minister, and on those grounds, I withdraw the amendment.
“Land purchasing: duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land(1) Any developer or company approaching a landowner to buy or lease land for the purpose of development must declare whether they are also approaching other owners of land in the vicinity to buy or lease land for the purpose of development.(2) The declaration required under subsection (1) must include whether the combined amount of land intended to be purchased or leased will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project as set out in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.(3) In subsection (1), “in the vicinity” means any land immediately adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing or whether there are others being approached so that the total sum of the land obtained may result in application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 227C in my name would insert a new clause after Clause 106 creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land round about. As the explanatory statement highlights, this is
“to ensure that any landowner being approached is aware of whether it is just their land that is the subject of purchase/leasing”,
or whether those making the approach are also reaching out to other owners of land in the vicinity for the purpose of the development. Subsection (2) states that the above statement
“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”.
Meanwhile, subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context, namely anything
“adjoining or within ten miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased”.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 227E, tabled in my name, among others, would address the wide-reaching consequences of a recent Supreme Court decision in a case called Day for persons who acquire former open-space land from local authorities. The context for this is that open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to the land for the purpose of recreation. When a local authority wants to sell open-space land, typically because it is either surplus to requirements or part of a land swap to facilitate new, higher-quality open space elsewhere, its decision-making process is subject to various procedural and substantive safeguards, under both statute and common law.
One of the procedural requirements is Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. This provides that the local authority may not dispose of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before doing so they advertise their intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks and consider any objections to the proposed disposal received in response to that advertisement. Under Section 123(2B) of the same Act, the sale of the land post-advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust. If a local resident or community group considers that any of the procedural substantive requirements regulating the disposal of land have been breached, they have a remedy: they can bring a claim for judicial review of the local authority’s decision.
In public law, the normal position is that if a public body’s decision is not challenged within the three-month time limit for bringing a judicial review claim, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision. However, in Day, the Supreme Court held that even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged at the time of disposal, and may be many years and even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertisement requirement means the statutory trust persists, thus frustrating the repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question. That is the case, the court reasoned, even if the land was sold to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, and even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements.
The effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory. It means that the land which has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision that it is in the public interest to dispose of it, which may have planning permission for beneficial redevelopment, is now bound by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse. It sits uncomfortable with the public law principle that unchallenged public decisions should be treated as valid, and with the property law principle that a bona fide purchaser, without notice of equitable interests, takes land unencumbered by those interests. This is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchased many years ago—sometimes decades, as I mentioned. The evidence about whether land in question had been advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available. This is holding up many developments across the country which already have planning permission.
A high-profile example of that is the current proposal to expand the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s internationally renowned facilities at Wimbledon to an adjacent former golf club site, the planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court. Claims that it is subject to a statutory trust in the light of the Day judgment are holding up the development and with it the substantial benefits to UK PLC that it would deliver.
Amendment 227E would deal with this issue by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. This would not remove the local authority’s duty to advertise before disposing of open-space land, nor would it remove any of the other legal safeguards on the decision-making process relating to such disposal. It would not interfere with the public’s right to challenge a decision to dispose of such land within the usual three-month window for bringing a JR claim.
What it would do, however, is ensure that, where there has been no such challenge and the transaction was made in good faith, the purchase is not subject to the deleterious uncertainty and burdens that I have outlined. This would be consistent with the Government’s stated desire to streamline the planning system and deliver the growth this country needs. I respectfully urge the Minister to give it serious thought.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and have added my name to his amendment.
Every so often, we get a court decision which produces an unsatisfactory outcome. If, as is the position in relation to this amendment, it is a decision of the Supreme Court, there is no further appeal process. In that event, it is possible to have recourse to Parliament for the resulting problem to be put right. This is such a case.
Quite often, because of the demands made on parliamentary time, it is not practical to get a speedy solution. Fortunately, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in progress and is, I believe, tailor-made for the resolution of this problem. The mischief addressed by the amendment was, as you would expect, identified by Lady Rose, delivering the unanimous judgment of the five-judge Supreme Court in the case of R (Day) v Shropshire Council that we are concerned with. In paragraph 116, at the end of her judgment, Lady Rose said:
“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.
This is one of those situations where Parliament can and should step in to perform some corrective surgery.
I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of some arcane trust law or a lengthy exegesis of Section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875, Sections 123 and 128 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the provisions of the Open Spaces Act 1906—the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has already done that. I do not mean he has bored your Lordships; I mean he has accurately, if I may respectfully say so, summarised the import of that mixture of ancient legislation.
Where a local authority is proposing to dispose of land, it is technically obliged to advertise that fact for two successive weeks in the relevant local press—that is by virtue of Section 123 of the 1972 Act. This enables residents to register their objections in advance of the disposition. It is a consultation process. I describe the advertising requirement as technical because the 1972 Act specifically provides that any failure to advertise—for example, by mistake or oversight—will not impede or undermine the transaction. The buyer is fully protected and gets title to the land purchased—that is Section 128, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, made reference to.
That provision says that the sale is not invalid for want of advertising and that the purchaser
“shall not be concerned to see or enquire”
whether the advertising requirement has been satisfied. Careful and complex historical investigation conducted by a potential purchaser may reveal that the land is subject to a public or statutory trust under the 1875 Act, entitling the public to go on to the land for recreational purposes. The effect of the Day case is far-reaching. It is accepted that the purchaser gets a good title, but the failure to advertise means that the public right to use the land remains in place. Moreover, that will continue to be the case for ever, because only the local authority has the power or duty to advertise under the 1972 Act, so it has a most profound and permanent effect.
Your Lordships will immediately appreciate the devastating impact of the Day decision. The land is blighted. The potential purchaser—for example, a developer—will walk away either because he does not know if the parcel of land, for historical reasons, is caught by the 1875 Act, or because he discovers it is caught, he can do nothing about it and his development plans would be frustrated. At a time when it is in the public interest to encourage housebuilding, it is important that unjustifiable impediments should not be allowed to undermine the furtherance of that crucial objective.
One can see that an objection to the amendment might be made along the lines that the public right to enjoy the land would be taken away. That is true, but there are two important countervailing arguments: first, there is an important public interest in doing whatever we can about the chronic housing shortage; secondly, it is obvious that, in the 1972 Act, Parliament was giving local authorities the power to sell the land and thereby to ensure that the public recreation rights would fall away for ever. The decision in Day makes it plain that if the advertising requirement had been satisfied, the public right would indeed have disappeared. When we take account of the fact that the purchaser gets a good title in any event, the intention of Parliament in 1972 is clear. That Act was designed to facilitate or ease the transfer of land.
The Day decision has produced an uncontemplated hurdle that can, and I respectfully suggest should, be set aside. I hope your Lordships, and indeed the Government in particular, agree with this analysis and will agree to the amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has just mentioned, the Supreme Court concluded its judgment by recognising that it would leave a “rather messy situation”. This amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to clear up that mess. The mischief that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, explained is impeding many developments up and down the country, not least the plans of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to expand its facilities at Wimbledon—a much-needed development that will enable the club to better perform its functions of national and, indeed, international importance. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner, in relation to this development; they are a formidable doubles team. I will just add a few points.
The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, the purchaser takes the land free from the trust. See Section 123 of the Local Government Act and paragraph 102 of the Supreme Court judgment. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I address Amendments 227C and 227E in the names of my noble friends Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lord Banner respectively. I thank both my noble friends for bringing these thoughtful and important proposals to the attention of the Committee.
Amendment 227C from my noble friend Lady Hodgson seeks to ensure greater transparency for landowners when they are approached for the sale or lease of the land. Specifically, it would require that the landowner is informed whether their land is being approached in isolation or as part of a wider acquisition, one that may ultimately support an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project—NSIP.
This strikes me as a considered and sensible safeguard. Landowners should be able to make fully informed decisions, particularly where the accumulation of multiple parcels of land could lead to significant legal and planning implications under the NSIP regime. Transparency in the early stages of land negotiation can foster greater trust between parties and avoid unnecessary disputes or confusion further down the line.
Amendment 227E tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner responds to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Day v Shropshire, as we have heard from other noble Lords. The amendment seeks to clarify and reinforce the protections available to purchasers acquiring land from local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972. I can be reasonably brief, since it has been well set out by the three noble Lords.
Given the uncertainty created by that judgment, it is entirely appropriate that we consider how best to provide reassurance to bona fide purchasers acting in good faith. Legal certainty in these transactions is vital, not just for the public sector but for developers and communities which rely on these deals to proceed smoothly.
My noble friend Lord Banner made a strong case that Amendment 227E would deal with the issue by providing that bona fide purchasers of former open-space land and their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. He also had the strong support of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, made the very good point that this is the only vehicle in due sight in order to change it. I hope the Minister will address that point. Are the Government willing to use a small amendment to the Bill to address a problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said was a mess?
I have been in this House for a few years, and I think if any Conservative criticised the godlike qualities of the Supreme Court, we would end up in severe trouble. It was interesting to hear that some noble KCs have discovered that the Supreme Court sometimes may get things slightly wrong.
These are very thoughtful amendments. Again, I thank my noble friends for tabling them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on these points in due course, and particularly on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Banner and what the Government plan to do to sort out the mess, as the noble Lord has described it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister replies, I just intervene, not having spoken previously, to say there are always two sides to any argument. There were clearly two sides to the argument before the Supreme Court, the other side being Dr Day’s argument that those people who had the benefit of access to open space should have been consulted about the loss of that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Banner that, clearly, the intention of the 1972 legislation was that local authorities could dispose of that land and that they would be able to do so notwithstanding the previous Open Spaces Act 1906. The point that was asserted on Dr Day’s behalf before the Supreme Court was that those people who benefit from access to open spaces should have been consulted. The opportunity should be taken just to establish that not only do we need to change the law, we need to examine how and under what circumstances local authorities that wish to dispose of land to which the public have access should consult those people who would be affected.
Lord Pannick (CB)
In answer to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.
While I am on my feet, I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that my noble friend Lord O’Donnell is here but was not here at the beginning of the debate. He tells me that he very much supports this amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting, if the Minister will grant one. He is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club. He strongly supports the amendment but cannot speak because he was not here at the beginning of the debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for their amendments related to land purchasing, and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, who have contributed to the debate.
Amendment 227C seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land in connection with a proposed development, developers declare their interest in purchasing adjacent land and confirm whether purchasing that land is being done in connection with a nationally significant infrastructure project for development consent via the Planning Act 2008. While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment—to increase transparency and discourage speculative land banking, which none of us wants to see—I respectfully argue that it is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.
Purchasing land in relation to developments, particularly those that relate to nationally significant infrastructure projects, can often be sensitive in nature and thus require confidential discussions between parties to ensure that the most appropriate and proportionate outcome is achieved for all. Requiring developers to disclose whether they are in talks with other landowners could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on the development of projects.
Furthermore, within the Planning Act 2008 guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land, there is government guidance on where purchasing land is required in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. This encourages developers to enter into early discissions with people who could be affected by land acquisition as a result of an NSIP. The Government stand by this guidance and seek to build on those principles without complicating negotiations with additional burdens on developers.
Lastly, where land is being purchased in connection with an NSIP, applicants are required to produce and keep up to date a book of reference, which is submitted with the application for development consent. This is a crucial document that is available for the public to view once an application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State and outlines all land and interests in the land associated with the application. This includes land and interests in land that may be affected by the development, including through compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or interests being suspended or extinguished. This document, therefore, provides a clear and transparent account of all land and interests in land proposed to be affected by an NSIP.
With that, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful proposal. However, in the light of the sensitivities noted, the guidance published, and the existing requirements of the Planning Act 2008, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary.
I turn to Amendment 227E. I hesitate to take on the combined ranks of the eminent noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for raising this important matter related to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory procedures. The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment.
Open and green spaces and public parks are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are one of the main reasons why people feel proud of their local area. They provide places for social connection, support health and well-being, increase community engagement and volunteering and help people to connect with nature, and can be a strong foundation for social capital.
We acknowledge that not all open spaces continue to serve their original recreational purpose. In fact, when they become neglected, they can cease to be an asset and become a burden for local authorities and communities. That is why there is a long-established procedure under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to allow for the disposal of open land held in trust.
If the procedure is followed, the land can be disposed of free from the trust provisions. Local authorities must advertise the intention to dispose of the land for two weeks in a local newspaper and consider any objections to the proposed disposal. Purchasers of land from local authorities can already protect themselves from acquiring land that they cannot develop because of a statutory trust by considering with their legal advisers whether the correct procedures have been followed, or raising appropriate pre-contract inquiries with the local authority prior to acquisition.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The Minister is suggesting that the Government are going to change the law on this. Can she give us any indication of the timescale when we might see legislation—an amendment to some primary Act of Parliament?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would be very loath to do that because, whenever you start looking into legal matters, in particular, it is always more complex than you anticipated. With the will to help make this make sense, I hope that we will be able to bring our combined forces together and get some resolution to the issue. But, for the reasons I set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered response. I am disappointed in her response to my amendment, because I think that, although I understand her point about confidentiality, there may be ways of communicating when landowners are approached, whether it is just an isolated approach or whether it is part of a larger project. I hope that there may be more thought about this.
I am sure that other noble Lords will have been heartened by the Minister’s response to Amendment 227E when she said that there will be further conversations to find a way to resolve this. I very much hope that further consideration will be given to the whole transparency issue, which might be brought back on Report. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 227H and address the proposition that Clauses 53 to 92 of Part 3 should not stand part of the Bill, as well as a number of other amendments, notably Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in my name, which are intended to provide an effective, simple and cost-effective way of addressing the issues that Part 3 professes to simplify.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I wish her a speedy recovery—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for their support to the clause stand part propositions. This is a broad church, and our reasons and solutions are likely to differ, and I look forward to their contributions. I am also grateful to the Minister for stepping in to help her colleagues with her deep Defra expertise, and for making time the other day to meet before this Committee sitting.
I have asked for the amendments to be grouped in this way to allow a debate on the limitations of Part 3 and on better ways of addressing the challenges it is seeking to tackle. I will endeavour not to repeat arguments that I have made previously, but a common thread of argument runs through all the amendments in this group, and it seems only reasonable that we should debate them together in this way.
At Second Reading I expressed deep scepticism about the approach to be taken to simplify environmental objections to planning processes in Part 3 of the Bill. I quoted environmental NGOs, rural lobbying groups and even development bodies that were united in their opposition to or concern about Part 3. I am most grateful to the Government for their amendments to strengthen environmental protections in this part. However, I am concerned that they are missing the point. The purpose of my amendments at this stage is to probe the necessity of such dramatic changes to environmental protection in the planning process. I would very much like to have a comprehensive answer from the Minister to the question of what exactly is wrong with the current environmental protections that cannot be addressed by tweaks to our current regime?
I do not wish to open up a complete Second Reading speech about everything that is wrong with Part 3 and why. I simply highlight that the effect of Part 3 is to create another process for dealing with environmental issues alongside existing processes. That will lead to confusion and muddle. The body tasked to implement this part is widely believed not to have the resources to do so effectively in a timely manner, and in fact often seems to be part of the problem. Existing protections for the environment through the planning process, such as the mitigation hierarchy and the use of private markets for biodiversity net gain, are functioning well and improving every day. The implementation of EDPs—environmental delivery plans—is likely to ride roughshod over the interests of farmers and land managers, be more costly than the current system, deliver uncertain outcomes and remove localism.
We know that up to 160,000 houses are being blocked by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality. This House chose to defeat our amendments to what became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that would have removed this blockage. These regulations are not designed for or well suited to our country, and the sooner we make them fit for purpose, the better. Amendments 346DD and 346DE are a reformulation of the amendment we proposed to that Act. This means that those 160,000 houses could be unblocked by the Secretary of State from the commencement of this Bill, faster than any EDP can deliver. It would be simple and free.
Amendment 334 would require the JNCC to review the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to publish a report on consolidating them. This would be with a view to the Government bringing forward legislation to replace them with domestic legislation that is fit for purpose in this country. This need not be a lengthy process and is a medium-term solution to the issues we have been left with in our planning system from adopting one-size-fits-all EU regulations. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the dynamic alignment with Europe that her Government appear to have adopted would pose problems for our legislating to protect our own environment.
We know that what appear to be poor decisions have been taken on a number of occasions: the £100 million bat tunnel for HS2 and the protection of the Ebbsfleet site as an SSSI. As we dig into these issues, we find that all too often it is questionable work that leads to these poor decisions, not the system itself. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising tabled Amendment 346DB, debated in an earlier group, which would remove protections for bat species that do not need them in our country. Had that been in effect, it would have meant no bat tunnel under HS2, as well as reducing the cost and increasing the speed of many if not all refurbishment and construction projects across our country. I know that my noble friend has taken on board the criticisms of some noble Lords and is working on a more nuanced amendment for Report.
I am not suggesting that these amendments are the only solutions to the planning issues being experienced in protecting the environment, and I know that they will not necessarily win everyone’s approval. I have also put my name to Amendments 242A, 185F and 185G in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which provide a constructive alternative approach that could also offer a better solution than Part 3 of the Bill. I know that those will be debated later in Committee.
Amendments 302 and 303 may not fit particularly well in this group, but they are tidying amendments which would make it clear that, under the auspices of EDPs, only the direct actions of those EDPs to address those features allow those features to be disregarded. I am very grateful again to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her support on these amendments.
We on these Benches are trying to provide a constructive alternative to Part 3. These are, by their nature, probing amendments. We are not intending to destroy Part 3 but simply questioning whether it is the right answer and whether more direct and simple action within the existing system is not better. I hope I have made the case that judicious use of the scalpel, through these and other amendments, can revise current environmental protection without weakening it and immediately get Britain building, rather than relying on yet another team of government employees with an open-ended chequebook. I very much look forward to other contributions to this debate and the Minister’s response. We are trying to unblock the planning system and reduce cost and complexity. I will need to be convinced that Part 3 is necessary not to bring similar amendments back on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed all the clause stand part elements in this group, which essentially aim to delete Part 3. Unlike the noble Lord, we in the Green group think that Part 3 is not as bad as it was, but we would still be better off without it. That is the view of many NGOs, campaign groups and experts who have been in contact with me. Indeed, although there is a bit of competition at the moment, the mailbag I have had on this issue is one of the bigger mailbags that I have encountered.
My noble friend majored on this in her Second Reading speech and asked why the Government had it in for bats, newts and frogs. It appeared that perhaps some members of the Government were scared by some of them as small children and were bearing the scars. It is encouraging to see that we have seen some back-pedalling in their apparent attitude to harmless small mammals and amphibians, but none the less there are still grave concerns about Part 3. We have already debated this in a number of groups, and it is a pity that we are getting to this so late and in such an incoherent manner, given the importance in this hugely nature-depleted country of the issues covered by Part 3.
I will not run through all the amendments, but I want to highlight the response of the Office for Environmental Protection, which published an analysis of the Government’s amendments. It states that,
“even after the material amendments the government proposes, the Bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protections on the face of the law.”
I will raise four big issues and I hope that we might hear some reassurance from the Minister. We have had some reassurances in statements from the Government, but that is not the same as on the Floor of the House. The first issue is the safeguarding of the mitigation hierarchy, ensuring that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply it, including by seeking to avoid harm whenever possible to our most important biodiversity assets. We are still nowhere near where we need to be on that.
Secondly, there is the overall improvement test so that conservation measures must significantly and measurably outweigh the negative impacts. We are talking about biodiversity net gain, but we are also talking about the conservation status of identified features, given the absence of European protected species legal tests. Thirdly, this is all about environmental delivery plans, and there needs to be an implementation schedule to provide the guarantees that the conservation measures will deliver the benefits, prior to the damage being done. Once valuable biodiversity is lost, it is gone, and promises to fix something up later, I am afraid, just do not crack it.
Finally, something I feel very passionate about is the irreplaceable habitats. I have stood at the foot of oak trees that were many hundreds of years old and thought about all the species and biodiversity that are dependent on them. There is no way of replacing that once it is lost and we have lost so much that we cannot afford to lose more. I am afraid that the Green position remains that we are nowhere near where we should be, and we are still heading in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate; I can see many noble Lords have stayed late with the intention of delivering a forceful message, I am confident. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the proposition that Part 3 not stand part of the Bill, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I have signed. It was unusual, but I feel that it was the right thing to do to bring this forward to indicate the strength of political feeling on these matters of nature protection. I am pleased to have added my name to them. Equally, I think it is right that they are not pursued at this stage.
I pay my respects to and thank the Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others, who have worked on and looked again at the concerns raised about the possible impacts of this Bill as it was initially drafted. Those have been voiced very strongly by the general public, by the NGO community and by Members of both Houses of this Parliament. It is not often that such a package of government amendments is tabled without a vote, but I must say it is a very welcome move. After Second Reading, I was not looking forward to the rest of the stages because I could see a showdown on basic nature protections coming down the line, so I am immensely grateful that this Bill has been substantially amended and improved. These amendments are not perfect, as others have said, but they do offer some substantial improvements.
I believe in the friendly hand of scrutiny, and I am convinced that Governments who listen and compromise make better laws than those who do not. Fundamentally, however, I feel that this Bill is still flawed. It carries a fundamental flaw through its heart in Part 3, because it identifies the wrong problems and then sets out to fix them in a not particularly great way. All the while, there are multiple other blockages to the planning system that do not really get the solutions that they need. They need to be unlocked so that we can get growth for housing, transition to clean power and do everything else that we really need to do.
I know the Government have made concessions and want this Bill passed. My hope is that, with shorter speeches from all, this Government will continue to listen, and we can continue the constructive dialogue in the time remaining to discuss the remaining important issues. In the interests of that time, I will not run through the changes but on these Benches we still have concerns about the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy as representing a really significant shift in approach—an approach that generally has worked fairly well.
This change of approach carries with it significant bureaucratic burdens and inherent risk for the businesses which will be undertaking this stuff and will face reputational damage. It creates an almost communist scale of new bureaucracy about moving nature as if it was Lego bricks from one place to another, but I am deeply concerned about the irreplaceable habitats. We will have opportunities to discuss this on the remaining clauses of this Bill.
We are also concerned about the mitigation hierarchy. Fundamentally, I still do not understand; I have looked at all the updated energy policies, such as EN-1 and those on nuclear power, the grid and renewables, and the mitigation hierarchy remains at the heart of those policies. I do not understand why, when that will continue to be the case after the Bill has passed, the mitigation hierarchy needs to be removed for housing. The Government might want to make arguments about the mitigation hierarchy in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects but, when we can deliver energy projects with the mitigation hierarchy, I do not see why that needs to be removed for housing.
I shall close on the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning, as quoted in the Times. While I deeply respect the Minister and everything that has been done here, I worry that another Bill will come down the line; that some aspects of this Government still perceive nature as a blockage to planning and development, even though the Government’s own impact assessment shows that this is not the case; and that commitments made here might be changed later on. Still, I thank the Minister; there is more to discuss, but I am grateful.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
There are three reactions coming to the fore about Part 3. A bunch of folk want to kill it because it is awful and unnecessary; a bunch of folk are predisposed to accept it, because although with the government amendments it is still not very good it is good enough, and we can probably get more amendments in the process of its passing through this House; and the third position is finding an alternative way of focusing on and resolving the issues that are stopping development happening. The last one is the way that I espouse.
Originally I had my name down to the mighty list of clause stand parts drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which would have completely kneecapped Part 3. I thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the problems with Part 3 that arouse such strong antipathy across the piece, regardless of which of the three reactions you espouse. However, I took my name down from the clause stand parts when I tabled my Amendments 185F, 185G and 242A. I presented those amendments with a heavy heart to the small but dedicated band who were still here, since it was the final group of Thursday night’s session. I had never experienced a death slot quite like that one before; it felt like a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire.
I believe that EDPs are a risky and not very good way forward, for a number of reasons. One is that they are probably unnecessary because they are too sweeping, regarding EDPs as needing to cover a plethora of issues that have already been resolved or, in the eyes of developers, are not really the problems that are getting in the way. Another is that the habitats regulations have stood us in good stead over many years. We invented them as a bunch of Brits, and they represent the highest level of protection for that tiny, most important set of sites and species. Developers have got used to applying them over 30 years; they have developed an understanding and expertise within their operations. Many developers admit that the habs regs and nature are a long way down their list of blockages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, are not in their places tonight, because they have developed a wonderful road map that shows how EDPs simply add another route to getting permissions rather than simplifying the existing routes.
My amendments would take the, I hope, constructive avenue of trying to find a middle way by restricting them to those issues for which they can be effective, which are strategic and landscape-level issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water quantity and air quality, and by adding amendments that I combined with them to give the heavy lifting on habitats regulation assessment to regional spatial strategies and local plans. By the time a developer came to put forward a planning application, not only would the majority of surveys and assessments have taken place but developers would be clearer where they should avoid sites with tricky protected species and instead aim for those sites rather less likely to have wrangles at stake. These already debated amendments have had a second opportunity to find their way to the light at a slightly more auspicious point in the timetable, and I hope that Ministers will consider them. They would be less dramatic than the clause stand part massacre of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
I do not wholly support the solutions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to the nutrient neutrality issue, mainly because I do not actually understand what his amendments intend to achieve. I will swot up on that before Report.
However, I will briefly speak in support of Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have added our names. They confirm that only impacts addressed by an EDP should be disregarded for the habs regs. We must make sure that any disregarding of the habitats regulations is absolutely forensic and rapier-like, not broad, woolly and unformed. They are important building blocks for nature conservation and recovery in this country. They do not get in the way of development if they are properly administered. They are about process rather than substance, and we can streamline them in a whole load of ways without wrecking them.
This is the nub of the Bill. If the truth were known, Part 3 is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that I have seen, and my first conversation with Ministers in the Commons did not reassure me. When I said that I was worried about the environmental impacts of the Bill, they said, “Don’t you worry about it. This isn’t an environment Bill; it’s a planning Bill”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support a number of amendments in this group, but I will limit my remarks to the debate on whether Clause 83 should stand part of the Bill. I was beaten at the post by my noble friend Lord Roborough in signing the clause stand part notice, so I added my name and support it wholeheartedly. I am concerned about this for a number of reasons.
It was remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her seat after the reshuffle last week; it is good to see her in her place.
I understand that Natural England is looking to lose some members of staff in various parts of the country, which raises an additional question mark over the resources and staffing that it has at its disposal to do this sizeable task. My noble friend Lord Roborough, in introducing this group of amendments, asked why these powers are necessary. There is great concern among the farming community that these powers are before us in the Bill. The cost of buying land and then paying to deliver the mitigation is not the best use of the nature restoration levy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the role of EDPs in achieving what the Government seek to achieve. The case is yet to be made as to why we need EDPs. Therefore, I would like to explore other solutions—perhaps private market solutions—to environmental mitigation in this regard. I support my noble friend Lord Roborough’s argument about the number of houses delayed from being built because of the policy that the Government are pursuing in this regard.
What the Government have achieved is probably something that they did not set out to achieve: both sides of the argument—the green lobby, or what have been called the environmental NGOs, and landowners and farming communities—are equally unhappy with how Part 3 has been drafted. I accept that the Government have tried to recover some of the ground through their own amendments, but I am particularly unhappy about the drafting of Clause 83. It begs the questions of what resources are available and why this role has been given to Natural England. This is happening against the background that Natural England, it appears, will be losing staff and resources at a time when the Government envisage such a major role as set out in Clause 83. I therefore lend my support to the amendments and stand part notices in this group, particularly that Clause 83 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak strongly for Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Two years after your Lordships’ House last considered nutrient neutrality, my noble friend’s amendments seek to break the nutrient neutrality deadlock, de-layer this cat’s cradle of conflicting regulations and allow us to focus on those things for best effort.
Three and a half years ago, in 2022, nutrient neutrality rules were created, and then, at a stroke, they hunky-bunkered over 200,000 planning applications in over 75 planning authorities—planning authorities which for the most part have the greatest housing potential, because they are the ones clustered around the conurbations and thus have the greatest capacity to deliver housing growth.
I was the council leader in one of these areas. At a stroke, together with our two neighbouring authorities, over 45,000 houses in a plan were made mute. We will never get roofs over people’s heads, including through affordable and social housing, while homes are not being built.
My noble friend’s amendment gets to the heart of this; it allows us to ask the fundamental question as to whether stopping housebuilding will clean up our rivers. At the outset, let us be clear: the statutory responsibility for ensuring a clean environment falls variously upon Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England—the statutory water undertakings for the effective running of sewage treatment works.
These bodies have the funding, the powers and the responsibility for cleaning up our rivers, but the nutrient neutrality rulings transfer those responsibilities to a completely different class of organisation with no obvious statutory or financial resources to do so: local councillors, the planning departments of local planning authorities, and the housebuilding industry more generally. It is a buck-passing from those who should be designing and implementing solutions, in favour of the LPAs and builders who do not have any control over the matter at all. Taking all the homes in the UK, the Home Builders Federation estimates that, of all the current planning applications that would be built, it would add just 0.92% to the overall housing stock of 25 million dwellings.
We have to consider materiality here. At this point, I feel I should declare that, when I was not leading a council in a previous life, my business was in the fertiliser industry. I have a degree in agriculture, I studied soil science, and I have built a career around advising on effective plant nutrition and the role of nutrients in soils. If I was on Mastermind, this would be my specialist subject.
As I reflect on my own experience, it is now widely understood that the nutrient effect of the impact of new homes, over and above the existing homes in rural places such as Norfolk or Herefordshire, might contribute just 0.2% of the total phosphate load in a catchment. Put another way, out of 500 potential mitigating strategies, 499 are more likely to reduce phosphate emissions in a catchment than prevent new homes being built. In essence, not building a handful of homes in Holverston connected to a Klargester will not clean-up Rockland Broad, to give a very local example.
It is important to restate why the restrictions have been imposed. The test in the habitats regulations and in law is to avoid “significant damage” to a special area of conservation—significant damage, not purely harm. I will never understand why we have stopped our second-largest economic sector, construction, and put tens of thousands of people out of work while serially sacrificing our housebuilding targets on the altar of nutrient neutrality—a marginal future gain of just 0.2%, when the problem exists here and now.
We are aiming at the wrong target by stopping housebuilding. Just ask the people of the Hereford catchment of the River Wye whether building a few less homes will clean up their river, or whether the wholesale processing and removing of animal waste from the catchment might be a better approach. There, it is generally accepted that 80% of the nutrient load in places like Herefordshire comes from poultry manures—not from industry, or even existing homes; still less from homes that have not yet been built.
Elsewhere in your Lordships’ House, the Environment and Climate Change Committee recently heard that over 20 million tonnes of sludges, slurries and digestates are applied to land from anaerobic digesters, and some of it on valley sides. I would venture to say that the Government would be better advised to focus on this issue, rather than stopping builders building. In essence, there is a dilemma. Do we focus on the 80%, or the 0.2%?
That is why I like the noble Lord’s amendment. It enables us to focus our minds on where the substantive problem is. It directs us at the big numbers, not the trivial numbers. It stops us worrying about the 0.2% that might come from the building of new homes and from the flushing of their loos, damaging a significant contributor to the local economies and supply chains. Instead, the amendment seeks to allow a regulatory focus on where the real problem lies, which is principally with organic manures and digestates applied to land on bare stubbles, with nutrients which become mobilised much later in the summer, after harvest, when the ground has warmed up. The summer rains produce the ideal conditions to break them down into mobile phosphates, but not when the growing crops are there to absorb them, so they run off.
If we focus on some of the bigger issues rather than the marginal ones, it might allow the Government to have a joined-up approach. We might even start to provide the grounds again for slurry schemes and storage, which were cancelled in the previous year; that is the key to handling the problem. The best chance of breaking this deadlock and getting new homes built quickly, as the noble Lord has said, is to take the rapier to Part 3 of the Bill and to work out how can we solve the problem, rather than misdirecting ourselves towards small harms. We need to address the big consequences that are harming our economy and our ability to grow, and to get roofs over the heads of the people who need those homes. These are not rich people. We need affordable housing, housing in villages, and housing on brownfield land. All this is hunky-bunker, and we must sweep it away and focus on the big target, not the little one.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, Part 3 of the Bill gives new wide-ranging powers to Natural England, which has been heavily involved in all aspects of Part 3, much of which has been made up on the hoof as the Bill progressed. Part 3 also contains a good dollop of empire building by Natural England. We should be very circumspect about agreeing this when the Office for Environmental Protection criticises it as environmental aggression and a leaked report suggests that the EU has similar concerns.
Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE for some time. There have been regular press comments about the mistakes that it makes. It is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic and inefficient in decision-making. It seems too focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner, and slow to embrace new technologies in environmental management. Farmers and land managers have lost trust in it, which is a disaster for nature. NE is not fit for purpose. I want to examine why.
Some key factors interlink and have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure. Where scientific expertise and sound judgment is a prerequisite, there is a lack of good in-house scientists and the consultants that it uses sometimes do not have the expertise needed. Over the last 20 years, due to budgetary constraints, the best scientific experts—and therefore the most expensive to employ—have left the organisation. It used to employ highly regarded scientists but now, with some notable exceptions, it is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists. Yet it is an organisation on whose judgments Ministers must rely, and legal regimes rest. Making those scientific judgments is even more challenging due to Section 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof under the law, raising a fundamental problem which only good scientists can tackle competently.
The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment. Here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving weight to hypothetical risks for which there is no credible evidence and without being questioned.
So the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated, as without proper oversight the system is open to abuse. Because of NE’s structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on myth or prejudice rather than sound science. This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues.
That “safe decision” attitude, which pervades NE, is now the ingrained cultural attitude and the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and/or delayed development, with little or no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE’s assessments of general licence applications 43 and 45 have revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding that game management activities are intrinsic to releasing activity, an overprecautionary approach based on bird flu risks and a presumption of negative impact. GL43 and GL45 were brought in to address environmental and legal issues, not bird flu.
NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it wants without challenge. Frighteningly, the Bill seeks to give it yet more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives or members of the board of trustees are, they are not ecologists and they are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach, even if based on myth adopted by the case officer.
It is hard to challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE is and do not want to campaign publicly for fear of damaging their relationships and having greater difficulty with their schemes in the future. This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those who wish to challenge NE from outside are faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of Biocore Agri Ltd in more detail on later amendments. In summary, Biocore was given approval by NE for its scheme in the nutrient market, only for NE to say it would refuse a detailed application due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency has upset Biocore and it has challenged NE. I am told that, in retaliation, NE has now threatened not to answer future correspondence from Biocore. Given that NE has obstructed the private sector on nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs?
I have had the temerity to question NE’s science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE has no hold on me. On 22 April, I wrote in some detail to the CEO setting out my concerns about the science that NE uses regarding wildfires and asked for a meeting. After long delays and a refusal to be allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff, which included the words: “We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach to evidence would be productive”. However, I have now heard from the CEO, who has offered a meeting. It will be in October, six months after I asked for it, but it would not be taking place had I not asked the Minister, to whom I am grateful, to look into the matter.
I ask your Lordships to contrast the arrogant, complacent and discourteous attitude of NE with that of the director of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which I emailed on 28 June with concerns about the problems fiprinol and imidacloprid are causing to the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. That reply gave rise to further questions and, on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August. The response was immediate and the meeting took place before the end of the month.
Inadvertently, with NE an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm of Rostekhnadzor in Russia has been created. This part of the Bill does nothing to rectify the deep-seated problems NE has. A wise Government would drop Part 3 and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development and the growth that this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless reformed, it will only abuse.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is right that we are having such a comprehensive debate on whether Part 3 stand part of the Bill. The Whip will remind us that we are not here to do Second Reading speeches, and I agree with that, but he will remember that the advisory time limit at Second Reading was a mere five minutes to cover every single clause of the Bill. That is why we are having a debate, and trying to understand from the Minister what the effect of these clauses is supposed to be, especially as we know that, since the Bill came into this House, the Government have been forced to table amendments.
A test of this Bill—certainly of Part 3—would be whether the new Secretary of State at the ministry would stand by the assertion that Angela Rayner made when she said that there be no detriment on the basis of existing environment law compared to were this to go through. I appreciate that that is still sub judice but it would be helpful if the Minister might be able to articulate whether Steve Reed would stand by that assertion. It may be that that is part of what has led to the amendments, though, as we have already heard, perhaps the amendments do not go far enough. Certainly, the OEP was critical of the Bill—I do not need to go over its criticisms again—and some changes have been made.
My noble friend Lord Caithness talks in detail about Natural England. I intend to speak a bit more about that in the next group of amendments, but I want to give a bit of assurance to my noble friend. One of the reasons for having the environmental principles policy statement was specifically for the Government to set out how they intended these different things, such as the precautionary principle, to apply. I am conscious of what my noble friend says, but, specifically when it came to the precautionary principle—I know this because I wrote it—there is the issue of risk.
Traditionally, there has been a lot of back and forth about risk and hazard and what the right approach should be to the precautionary principle. By and large, Conservative or Labour Governments have taken a risk-based approach. I will give your Lordships a further example. If bleach was introduced today, almost certainly it would not be allowed, because the hazard would be too great. We do not do that; we do it on a risk-based approach. I am pleased to say that, in the government policy, which is still valid today, it says that
“in all cases, for the precautionary principle to apply, there must be sufficient evidence that the risk of serious or irreversible damage is plausible and real”.
I hope that reassures my noble friend.
There are various elements of Part 3 for which I want to understand and probe further what the Government intend to do. Clause 58 starts off by saying:
“When Natural England decides to prepare an EDP”.
But who is going to give that direction? Why is it up to Natural England to decide whether it is going to prepare an EDP? It would be helpful for the Minister to explain why the Government have come up with that phraseology. We will debate EDPs in a lot more detail, so I do not need to go into every intricacy of them now, but it would be helpful to get a sense of what the primary legislation is trying to get at. It feels a little like the designation of the expiration of SSSIs, where it is left entirely to Natural England to decide whether to look at an SSSI, whether to extend it and so on. That is not satisfactory either. It would be useful to understand the Government’s intentions in that clause.
It would be helpful to get some clarity on Clause 68(4) before I move on to Clause 86. Having accepted that a developer is going to pay the levy, Natural England can then
“rescind its acceptance … such that the developer ceases to be committed to pay the nature restoration levy”.
On the one hand, we are saying that the levy is mandatory; on the other, we are saying that it is not. In what circumstances has it been deemed that regulations might be needed to withdraw that? Perhaps the whole development comes to a grinding halt, but I think there will be several of us who are concerned that this is just another way to stop people paying towards the levy. I made this point in our debates last week that the chief executive of Natural England had come up with a series of assertions that it was not mandatory for developers to pay the levy and later that councils could assess the validity of the EDP being developed and the progress of it and make decisions on whether or not it was valid to grant planning consent. There are also other issues with Clause 59.
In Clause 86, Natural England is mentioned basically everywhere, and the Secretary of State is mentioned every now and again. The clause is saying that the Secretary of State can decide anyone has the power to exercise the functions. If that is the case, why have we gone into that level of detail about Natural England being granted all these compulsory purchase powers when really, at the stroke of a pen, they could be given to just one single person? That feels extraordinary.
So I am really concerned about Clause 86 in general. I am conscious that the Minister may want to elucidate on this clause in more detail, and I hope that she can explain what it is seeking to achieve. It may be that the Secretary of State wants Suffolk Wildlife Trust to develop the plan or some other body—it could be somewhere special in Cumbria. By the way, I congratulate the Minister on staying in her post given that she is the only person who has any connection to the countryside; I am sure even the Prime Minister realises that Defra needs somebody who actually lives and breathes the countryside.
However, the designated person will be defined in regulations, so it could be anyone. It is pretty stark to give such huge powers to just anybody. We have seen this in the Employment Rights Bill, where—as we finally discovered through debate in this House—a designated person or body, like the trade unions, could be given unlimited amounts of taxpayers’ money. We are seeing that here in this Bill too. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what, in seeking that the clause stand part, the Government are seeking to achieve.
I know people want to catch trains shortly after midnight so we should not extend this much further, but I want to mention aspects of the mitigation hierarchy and to get some clarity from the Minister. I recognise this has already been brought up a few times today. In the Commons, Matthew Pennycook was very clear that he did not believe the mitigation hierarchy was in any way fixed. Can the Minister clarify whether the principle of “do no harm” is being ripped up?
I will speak separately to my noble friends about parts of the reality of the River Wye. Some of it is just that the river is too hot because somebody has managed to cut down tons of trees, so there is no shade anymore, which has led to greater chemical reactions happening than perhaps Natural England would otherwise predict.
Finally, I will speak to some of the other amendments. My noble friends on the Front Bench have tabled Amendments 346DD and 346DE; they are familiar because they are very similar to amendments tabled by the last Government, of which I was a member. I would say gently to some of my noble friends that, when I was looking at some of these significant changes, I looked at a map and some of these parts of the country are tiny. Are there not some other parts of the country where we could consider building instead of going on such a controversial route as we took at the time? This Government have gone far further with Part 3 as it stands, but I look forward to some of the explanations on that.
I completely agree with Amendments 302 and 303, which my noble friends have been tabled.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough.
The focus of Natural England is bureaucratic and precautionary, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Caithness. We need to find a way around the freezing of housing developments by Natural England under its nutrient neutrality rules. This is a real growth killer in those areas. My noble friend Lord Roborough has tried to find an immediate remedy in some of his amendments; I encourage the Minister to look at them and perhaps come forward with some further amendments to this important Bill. I remind the Committee that page 6 of the Explanatory Notes says that the Bill
“intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”.
My worry is that Part 3 gives Natural England the power to bring about the opposite.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have had a number of conversations with developers over the course of the past month or two. Their universal conclusion is that Part 3 makes it much harder to build houses. It adds huge levels of risk and uncertainty. It tears up the arrangements that they were half way through making—in order to get things done and deal with the environmental impact of housebuilding—and substitutes them with a regime where they just will not know what is happening. It will be really difficult to make commitments because so much could change if an EDP is imposed and because of the timescale of imposing an EDP. What will the consequence of an EDP be? It will make the whole business anti-business.
I really hope that the Government will take the chance of a change in the Secretary of State to look at this aspect of the Bill and say, “Even if it’s a good idea, we need to take it slowly and carefully, and we need to make sure that people can rely on it”, because, if you are setting out to build houses on any scale, you are taking a long-term decision. You need to know how the landscape will be for years in advance.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has kindly organised meetings with Natural England. I have been to two of them, in fact; I was late to one but, for the first one, I was there almost the entire time. One rather excited official from Natural England described what is going to happen as the most exciting thing that had happened in his career. I am not surprised—I mean, all its Christmases are coming at once. It is getting to have a role at the heart of planning and development; to design schemes across the country; and to run the authoritative model to determine where, how and when EDPs will be implemented. I have noticed several references tonight to the Soviet Union, an area with which I have worked extensively. I had exactly the same thought when I read this Bill. This is real Gosplan in action. The idea of some apparatchik sitting at his computer in Westminster and saying, “Bang—we will do that over there”, is absolutely what went wrong with the Soviet Union.
A lot of rude words have been said about Natural England tonight, many of which it deserves. My only real encounter with it was when I tried to put a catchment scheme together up the river—noble Lords may remember the days when we had environmental programmes that were still open. I was looking at doing one of those. The Natural England person said to me, “You know, it sounds like a lot of work, and it’s awfully complex. Are you sure you really want to do it?” These are the people who will be designing EDPs across the country and inflicting them on us. In our debate on the next group of amendments, there will be this question: why is it written as though Natural England is the only solution for all time? Why can it not be more general? I will leave that for others to talk about in the next section.
Two things came out of my latter meeting with them. One was that—noble Lords may or may not be aware of this—if you are a developer, you have to do biodiversity net gain, BNG. That is additional to the levy that you are going to be paying. I just think that everybody should be aware of that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above nutrient neutrality, the biodiversity net gain levy, but has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in addition in an astonishing layering effect? There is the GIRAMS, the green infrastructure recreation avoidance and mitigation strategy, and the SANGs, which is special areas of something—there are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over and above. The cumulative effect of all these is so great that what has to give is the affordable housing, the community infrastructure levy and all those other wider improvements. Has he made some sort of consideration of that in his research?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The noble Lord asked me to say something before I sat down. I will now sit down, but he has thoroughly ruined my evening. Thank you.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, please bear with me. I only have 20 minutes. It has been a very long debate and, because of the clause stand parts, I need to go through everything. I will do my best to cover everything off, but anything I do not, I will get back to the noble Lords in writing.
Our vision is for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. The reforms in the Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious housebuilding targets and fast-tracking the planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. But we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not and will not come at the cost of the environment. It is this ethos that sits at the centre of how we have designed the nature restoration fund.
The new system is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. We know that the status quo has not been working, neither for development nor for nature. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned concerns that have been raised. We recognise the concerns about establishing an alternative approach. We have worked closely with stakeholders and have taken their views on board, which has culminated in the package of government amendments laid in Committee that noble Lords have mentioned. I would like to particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for recognising the improvements that they have brought to the Bill.
I want to set out how this new approach is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced a very helpful diagram at the recent drop-in session on the Bill. We are working on that to make it fully accurate and we will share further information in a letter that will help noble Lords to better understand our new approach and provide reassurance on what we are trying to achieve. I hope that that will clarify a number of questions that have been asked today, including around the mitigation hierarchy and other concerns that were raised regarding developers by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise that they have not been ready for today’s session, but hopefully we will have them ahead of Wednesday.
It is important to highlight that the NRF establishes an alternative mechanism to discharge existing environmental obligations. It does not create any new obligations or repeal any existing environmental obligations. Where an EDP is put in place, it will remain open to developers either to use the EDP or to discharge the relevant environmental obligation under the existing system. This is baked into the design of EDPs, which will set out the capacity of development they can support but can scale the delivery of conservation measures according to the amount of development that comes forward.
This highlights another important feature of this new model in that Natural England and, ultimately, the Secretary of State would not prepare an EDP where it was not necessary to support development and the environment. These are targeted tools that will be used only where there is both a clear need from development and an ecological case that the EDP could materially outweigh the negative impact of development.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, raised concerns about the role of Natural England. I am pleased that the noble Earl now has a meeting arranged but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, the next debate will be an opportunity to get into more depth around Natural England’s role.
I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation. Only then would the Secretary of State consider whether the EDP could be made in line with the overall improvement test. This consultation is vital, because it is the stage when people can test the approach being proposed, in terms of the design and efficacy of the conservation measures. This is also where Natural England will set out whether it is proposing to include planning conditions to drive action on the part of developers, as part of the EDP. In the limited circumstances where conservation measures benefit a site different from the one impacted by development, the EDP will set out the ecological justification for these measures and how they are more beneficial to the environmental feature in question than on-site measures.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Would the Minister clarify? I will be very brief. The EDP is designed on the basis of offsetting some environmental damage, but at what point do the developers choose whether or not to pay the levy into it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This is what we are trying to do with the diagram and the note; they will clarify all that.
If, after the consultation and consideration of the overall improvement test, an EDP is made, developers would be able to make a payment into the EDP which would, subject to any conditions, discharge the relevant environmental obligation. The responsibility for delivering conservation measures and the overall improvement would then move to Natural England, which would use the money received through the nature restoration levy to secure the necessary conservation measures. These would then be supported by a thorough regime of monitoring and reporting to ensure that the outcomes are delivered, with the government amendments clarifying the actions that must be taken were conservation measures not to perform as expected. Once in place, the EDPs will deliver a streamlined approach for developers while improving the conservation status of the environmental feature.
This is part of Clause 53, so I will address the first amendment in this group, because it is relevant to this clause. Amendment 227H, from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would change the name “environmental development plan” to “environmental harm mitigation plan”. I think that we have different ambitions for the nature restoration fund. We are clear, both in our aims and through the legislation, that EDPs will go beyond simply mitigating harm and will more materially outweigh the negative impact of a development. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw that amendment.
Clause 54 sets out the requirements for what an EDP must include in relation to area, type of development, volumes of development and duration of the EDP, providing clarity on the scope and setting clear expectations for Natural England on what needs to be included when preparing an EDP.
Clause 55 introduces the concept of conservation measures, which are the measures to be funded by an EDP. It also introduces the concept of the environmental feature, which is a protected feature of a protected site or species that is likely to be impacted by a development that the conservation measures seek to address. It establishes the framework of the rules.
While we are on Clause 55, Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Roborough, seek to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific nature and specific impacts identified in the EDP. This is important and I am pleased to be able to provide clarity and assurance on this point. As drafted, Clause 55(1) defines an environmental impact as
“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”,
as identified by the EDP. This means that the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. Of course, there could be circumstances where it may have multiple environmental impacts and, if only one of those was addressed by the EDP, the remaining environmental impacts would still need to be assessed through the existing system.
Clause 56 requires Natural England to produce charging schedules, which is critical as that will establish the rates that developers need to pay to rely on the EDP. The clause makes it clear that different rates can apply for different kinds of development covered by the EDP. Clause 57 sets up further detail around the information that Natural England has to include in an EDP; for example, an underlying environmental condition. That is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each environmental feature, so that we can set a baseline for improvements and how they are measured.
Looking at the procedures, Clause 58 sets out the requirements that Natural England must meet. The Government have tabled an amendment to replace Clause 58 with Clause 87A, which extends and broadens the duties it contains to other functions of Natural England and the Secretary of State in relation to this part. I will speak to this amendment in due course but, in the light of that, the Government are not seeking to support the inclusion of the current Clause 58.
In introducing the restoration fund, we have been clear that this new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. Clause 59 is therefore central. It secures the effective scrutiny and has a consultation process to lead to better EDPs informed by relevant experts and local communities, but also provides the Secretary of State with the assurance that he needs to approve an EDP. The nature restoration fund is, as I said, not just about streamlining but about using funds more effectively, which is why Clause 60 requires that the Secretary of State may approve an EDP only once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the importance of the overall improvement test. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that it will be delivered by the end date of the EDP. EDPs are therefore focused on the timely delivery of environmental outcomes.
I move on to the reporting, amendment, revocation and challenge requirements. Once an EDP is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures and progress made. It is vital that key information, such as performance of conservation measures and the remaining development capacity, are made available. It is important to have transparency so that proactive steps can be taken if an EDP is underperforming. It also allows the Secretary of State to amend an EDP if required.
Clause 62 has the reporting requirements and also looks at how the levy is being set and the transparency around that, so that developers, the local community and environmental groups can continue to engage during the EDP’s lifespan. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend EDPs in specific circumstances where it is necessary to do so; for example, to reflect new environmental information or to accommodate additional development. Crucially, the Secretary of State is bound by the same overall improvement test as when making an EDP.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who talked about the process for revoking; the circumstances on how that would be used are established in Clause 64. Of course, this is the option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach this point, including the ability to amend and to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance. Development that has relied on the EDP prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. The Secretary of State must then consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation are suitably addressed. Obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, so we recognise that it is important to provide a route to challenge EDPs. The route of challenge is in Clause 65 and enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published.
I turn to how the nature restoration levy operates. Clause 66 sets out the framework. If a request is accepted by Natural England, the developer is then committed to making the relevant payment, which will be set out in the charging schedule, which will be published. Once the developer has committed to paying the levy, the environmental obligations are altered in line with the EDP. Ensuring that Natural England can secure the funds to deliver the conservation measures through the nature restoration levy is central to this approach and provides certainty. The positive outcomes for nature that the EDP will deliver will be realised only if the developer chooses to make them. Therefore, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable. The regulations will be able to deal with a range of technical matters relating to the ability to pay, such as cancellation or withdrawal of such liability, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and am very impressed by the depth and timing of the Minister’s response. It was clearly a lonely place to be defending Part 3 today. The concerns were well aired around the Committee about its impact, as well as questions about exactly what the problem is. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it very well: where is the problem? The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I talked about surgical solutions to some of the issues that we consider to be the problems that are blocking planning.
Despite the impressive response from the Minister, I still have not heard a justification for why Part 3 is in the Bill. Clearly, I will not press these amendments now, but I would like the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through Part 3 and debate the amendments. I hear a commitment from the Minister to work with the Committee to improve Part 3, but I still question why it is there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have multiple amendments in this group. In essence, the whole thrust is that the Secretary of State should be in charge of this rather than it be passed to Natural England through primary legislation. I say that because of a number of factors. I am not going to do a big attack on Natural England, but I think it is worth exposing some of the challenges. I am slightly conscious that, according to the clock, I have already spoken for 15 minutes—time goes quickly when you are having fun.
One of the things the Prime Minister has set out is that decisions should not be palmed off to all these other bodies; Ministers should be accountable. That matters. A frustration that the wider public have is that too often it feels like Ministers have either lost control or given up control. For a variety of reasons, it has often been deemed that a third party would be better off doing this than the elected Government of the day. I do not think that is the right approach. Recognising the other piece of legislation we have had along the way in getting here, it is right that Ministers should be accountable. Natural England is an arm’s-length body, with a sponsoring department at Defra, but it has its own independent board. There are certain rules that it is not particularly accountable to because it is a regulator, and others that are delegated through a variety of ways. Importantly, Natural England is formally the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State for Defra.
As a consequence, with these amendments I am trying to say that, frankly, if the Secretary of State wants to delegate a lot of the creation of EDPs to Natural England or others, that should be in their capability to do so, but we do not need legislation to make that happen; it already exists. That is one of the fundamental reasons why I believe that, despite all the other minor protections that are in place, it is the Secretary of State who should be named, and we can get rid of quite a few clauses along the way.
I do not wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but, in answer to the question about Clause 86, it sounded like the Minister was ready to accept Amendment 333. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will be thrilled at that as well, though perhaps my noble friend Lord Lucas might not be so keen.
On delivery, I worry about how much in this legislation has been concentrated. I may sound contradictory when I say thank God for that part of the Bill that allows for other people to do things that Natural England has been empowered to do. A lot of this might need changing, as I am concerned about the delivery capability of Natural England. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to this being like its dream come true. It felt like that under the Environment Act when, quite rightly, ambitious targets were set. I am pleased that the Minister wrote in her recent response to my QWA—I paraphrase, slightly—that this will definitely improve Natural England, but the question is about time. How can we get on with the pace? The Environment Act 2021, primary legislation, is specific about the species abundance target that must be achieved by 31 December 2030. I am afraid Natural England is not good at pace. I have met so many people who have been trying to plant trees, a whole series of them, yet it has taken over two years to get agreement—and not of the Forestry Commission, which is slow enough as it is, although definitely well-intentioned. Natural England is well intentioned too, but it is ridiculous that it is taking so long and we have heard complaints about housebuilding that was supposed to be updated.
Take what is perhaps not the simplest of tasks—although it feels like it should be. We started on the journey for the coastal path for England to be completed by 2020. There was a legal ruling, involving People Over Wind, which meant that Natural England had to do a bit of reassessment of its coastal path. Even then, the Senior Deputy Speaker said at the Dispatch Box that it would be done by the end of 2021. I put in the environmental improvement plan that it would be done by the end of 2024. The latest is that Ministers are saying 2025-26. The latest update is that, by August of this year, of the 2,700 miles, two-thirds had been done. There are still 900 miles to go. That is just one example of whether Natural England will actually do what it is being asked to do. That is my big fear.
A lot of developers will be trying to get away from these environmental obligations and all these different things. That is why I am concerned about outsourcing this in primary legislation to a completely different, although admittedly arm’s-length, party. I would not only prefer that we do not have this thing more broadly, but that we can hold the Secretary of State to account, day in, day out, on what progress they are making, and not only on the environmental targets. Ultimately, that is what this is all about: to hit targets and to save this planet. That is why we negotiated so hard in Montréal. It has all been done to make sure that we have a planet in the future. That is why I have tabled these amendments. I beg to move Amendment 228.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for moving her amendment and for giving the preface to my Amendment 333, to which I would like to speak. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Lucas to explain why he has amended my Amendment 333. This is a probing amendment. I hope that the remarks of my noble friend Lady Coffey will bear fruit—that the Government really want to apply the contents of Amendment 333. I have done the Government a great favour in this regard.
The reason I have tabled Amendment 333 is that Clause 86, as currently drafted, permits the Secretary of State, by regulation, to designate another person to exercise the function of Natural England. Clause 86(2) says:
“for a designated person to replace Natural England, or … for Natural England or a designated person to exercise functions under this Part only in relation to an area or a kind of development specified in the regulations”.
My noble friend Lady Coffey has prepared the ground very well in this regard because, as she pointed out, Natural England acts as an adviser to the Secretary of State. My Amendment 333 would insist that a “designated person” must be a public body. That public body should act independently of the Secretary of State and the Government. That is why I believe it should not be Natural England; it should be a public body that can operate in that regard. I would like to understand the reasoning behind the Government drafting it in this way—so that the functions and the powers of compulsory purchase of Natural England could be passed to a third party.
I put on record that my concern is about the threat to the future use of farmland, as we currently know it, for purposes other than farming, and perhaps the ease with which a designated person could ensure that these powers to compulsorily purchase land were used in a way detrimental to farming.
I would just like to confirm that I have understood what the Minister said in summing up on the previous group. I think she said that the powers in Clause 83 would be used only where negotiations had failed. Is my understanding correct? I would like to place on record my fervent hope that the efforts under Clause 86 would come into effect only if the parties—that is, the Government and the landowner or farmer—failed to reach a voluntary agreement. That is what I understood the Minister to say, so I ask her to confirm that.
For the benefit of clarity, I would like to know that, where a body other than Natural England is designated in Clause 86, it will be a public body that can act independently of Government and, in that capacity, is more likely to gain the trust and understanding of those to whom the compulsory purchase order will apply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for cosigning Amendment 333.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
The noble Baroness might not thank me when she hears what I am about to say. I signed up in support of this amendment without realising that we were talking in exactly opposite directions about what the desired effect should be. I believe this is a probing amendment. I was very pleased when the Minister, in her response to the previous group, said that she believed that it should be another public body. For the avoidance of doubt, we should have that in the Bill.
I do not see this as something we would want to do frequently. It would be useful to know the Minister’s thinking about why this provision is in the Bill. If Part 3 is about taking a strategic approach to landscape-scale conservation and nature restoration, it is important that there is some controlling mind organising all this. I do not think it can be the Minister; it has to be Natural England. If there is any delegation from Natural England to another public body, it should be at the behest of Natural England, not the Minister. It would be extremely useful to know why this is in the Bill in the first place and to get at least a requirement that another public body is designated. Perhaps the Minister will outline the circumstances envisaged in this amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group are also of a probing nature, but I say first how much I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I had the privilege of being the Whip in this House for the Minister of Agriculture in the last years of John Major’s Government, at a time when BSE was rampant and the Countess of Mar was active on the Back Benches. I know which I was more frightened of.
MAFF in those days was a shell of a department because almost all the powers and money ran through Europe. One of the problems of BSE was that MAFF could do nothing because it did not have the direct control to do anything. As my noble friend said, this would all work better if there was first-line democratic control of what was happening here, not by statute to Natural England but by a decision of the Secretary of State to Natural England, so that the ultimate decisions and accountability stayed with the department. That would make for a much healthier, more effective department.
On this business of delegation, Amendment 328A asks whether, if we are to designate organisations, it could be a national park. That is my question here: is it the Government’s intention and is there scope within law to make a national park a designated person under this clause? If I understand the way this clause is intended to work, that would be a sensible arrangement, and I would like to know whether it is possible.
I turn to Amendment 333A. I entirely understand what my noble friend is saying in her Amendment 333, and it is merely a convenient place to put my question. Should not the EDP delivery include a role for land managers as trusted partners? Look at the difficulties that Natural England has in making sure that its SSSIs are in good order. As a resident of Eastbourne, I live in the middle of a collection of SSSIs that are in very bad order; they are supposed to be chalk grassland but are actually knee-high brambles. There is real difficulty for an organisation such as Natural England to make so much happen on the ground. If it could have long-term relationships with trusted partners who are embedded in a particular bit of the countryside, it would be in a much better position to get things done.
Farmers are generally, although I know not universally, keen to deliver on local environmental priorities and to allocate 10% or so of their land for nature recovery, as long as legislation and policy allow this to be delivered profitably. Private sector organisations such as the Environmental Farmers Group—I declare an interest that my brother is one of its directors—have already developed catchment-scale environmental transition plans that dovetail with the proposed EDPs. Such existing delivery structures, alongside farm clusters and catchment partnerships, should not be ignored. We already have this sort of partnership structure with national nature reserves—Elmley and Holkham are the ones I think of, being a southerner, but there are doubtless others—that are really well run by private estates.
Clause 76(3) will provide Natural England with the power to pay others to deliver EDPs, but it is sparse on detail. It would be helpful to know the criteria to qualify for acting on behalf of Natural England and what opportunity organisations could have in the process of preparing and delivering an EDP. Clause 59 will require a consultation on a draft EDP, but that is very late in the process. Consequently, Amendment 274, which is in the next group, would require Natural England, during the preparation of an EDP, to ask for expressions of interest from persons or organisations who can demonstrate their suitability for delivering the EDP. That would assist Natural England in meeting its obligation, under Clause 57(2), to explain why its measures are appropriate and what alternatives have been considered.
In addition, proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 311 to Clause 71, which is rather later in our groupings, aims to encourage consideration of delivery by landowners and managers in the local area, given that this would lead to better outcomes for nature and the local area. Clause 86, which allows the Secretary of State to designate a person to replace Natural England in using the Bill’s powers, seems very wide-ranging, without limitations or clarity as to the nature of the designated person. Given that Natural England is committed to working with trusted partners in its strategy, it seems relevant to extend this relationship into legislation and to define the criteria for the appointment of trusted partners, which is currently lacking. The Corry review recommended that:
“Criteria would need to be developed to ensure that a consistent approach is taken for how autonomy is earned and then recognised and retained”.
Amendment 333A seeks to embed the role of trusted partners in EDP formation and delivery and to define the criteria for appointment. I fully understand that there may be other ways of doing it, but it is important that such trusted partners should be a core part of the strategy.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, who made an excellent speech trying to persuade the Government to take out Natural England and put in the Secretary of State. As I said on the last group of amendments, Natural England has become unaccountable and unquestionable. It is also acting as judge and jury in its own right.
If you google Natural England, you come to the GOV.UK website. Under “What we do”, it says:
“We’re the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England”.
If it is the adviser, then it is the Secretary of State who should be totally accountable, as well as the Minister in this House, whom we can question. At the moment, we cannot question Natural England in the way that we can question Ministers. I think that is entirely wrong, and I hope the Government will agree.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is this something the noble Earl would want extended to other government agencies? Is he envisaging that, with the Environment Agency, for example, all the powers should be held by Ministers and only delegated on sufferance? The Forestry Commission is in a slightly different position because it is a non-ministerial government department. I am just trying to understand whether this is something he thinks is a good point of principle for a Government’s relationship with all their agencies, or whether this is a witch hunt against Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
No, it is not a witch hunt against Natural England by itself, because I think a lot of the agencies suffer from exactly the same problem. However, this Bill is giving Natural England huge executive powers which it has not got at the moment. Those executive powers should be used by the Secretary of State so that they can be questioned in Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Coffey also spoke about Natural England’s capabilities. It is worth looking at some of its capabilities. It manages a national nature reserve at Moor House; it is the only one it manages directly. It was supposed to be a beacon of best practice and demonstration. After 70 years of quango management, of the 25 sites of special scientific interest, only five are in favourable condition—as assessed by Natural England itself—and the rest, 80%, are either unfavourable, declining or in one case destroyed. In Dartmoor, the trust between farmers, landowners and Natural England broke down so seriously two years ago that the Conservative Government had to commission a review chaired by David Fursdon. That reflects very badly on Natural England.
More recently, Natural England launched a new interactive peat map and invited the public to use it to inform responses to a live Defra consultation on heather burning. One would think that was fairly simple and straightforward; what could go wrong? Well, within minutes of the map becoming live, owners, farmers and tenants highlighted major inaccuracies in this new mapping tool, making any work based on it of spurious value. These were not minor glitches, but a basic failure of environmental cartography. Natural England’s track record is not very good. In fact, it is pretty useless. I therefore strongly urge the Government to change the wording of the Bill as proposed in the amendments from my noble friend Lady Coffey and myself.
I commend and support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. If we are going to go down this route with Natural England, it is hugely important that trusted partners take on the work of running the EDPs. If you look at some of the farming clusters already set up and ready to do this, it is much better that people who live on and work the land are the ones who take over and run the EDPs, rather than a quango based elsewhere, which is not there on a daily basis. I will be talking more about the trusted partner in later amendments, but the principle of what my noble friend Lord Lucas wants to do is absolutely right.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this group of amendments on the role of Natural England. It is a big group, so I will not respond to everyone at this late hour. It is clear that there are remaining concerns about the Bill in terms of not weakening nature protections and the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There are two problems here. There is the complexity of what needs to be done and there is the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what it is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation, should it be passed.
Natural England is absolutely central to delivering the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today, because I think this is important. The Government cannot both create more complicated systems that as a result of their actions require more people to do more things, to see that the duties made by their legislation get done, and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut. Actually, that tension between what are almost two different sides of government worries me. It worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just park that there.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course I fully understand the intention that it is about looking at responsibility, bringing in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done. There is an argument to say that Natural England may not be as accountable, and I understand that. My problem is that the Bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and the nature restoration fund and I do not think that just changing the wording of the Bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground. There are other ways that we can do that, in terms of holding the Secretary to State to account in any case, and holding Natural England to account, so I do not particularly feel that that is a solution to the complexities that are created by the legislation.
I want to speak to Amendment 328A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 333 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was not certain whether Amendment 328A was a probing amendment, but the noble Lord has clarified that it is. As such, I welcome it and I look forward to the Minister’s response. My view is that the national park authority should be included, and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
Amendment 333 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Young, seeks to clarify
“that the powers given to Natural England under Part 3 can only be delegated to a public body”.
I welcome this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I also note what the Minister said on the previous group, that the intention of the Government was that it would only be a public body. We definitely welcome that statement. I think there is still perhaps a need to have this amendment to the Bill and, with that, I will sit down.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, back in 2022, when the nutrient neutrality rules came in, it started a three and a half year hiatus that has prevented the building of new affordable homes, caused the bankruptcy of local architects, the closure of local builders’ merchants, the liquidation of many smaller builders and the folding of so many white van journeyman contractors—the plasterers, plumbers, groundworkers, roofers and tilers.
What was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader, I sought to find out. It did not take long to identify Natural England as the culprit. So I asked it for its reasoning. It advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single kilogram of phosphate anywhere in a catchment, regardless of the distance from a special area of conservation that needed protection under the regulations. It fundamentally refused to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be applied in any other walk of life or by any other regulator. Its approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Surlingham Broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipdham, over 30 miles away along a convoluted network of ditches, streams, tributaries and rivers before those rivers passed by the Surlingham Broad.
It is nonsense. I do not deny that there might be some infinitesimally small, theoretical riparian link between the lavatory in Surlingham and the toilet in Shipdham, but anyone who has studied for O-level or GCSE maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance, so the effect of the loo in Shipdham would be 30 times 30—900 times—less impactful; that is, if the water from that loo did not percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into littoral plants, adsorbed on to soil particles or carried away in a farmer’s crops, in which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is.
When I asked, the designated person said that as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approach is to assume that all the phosphorus will at some point reach the site, albeit this may take varying lengths of time and therefore there is the possibility of it contributing to the eutrophication impacts now or in the future. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that this “bathtub principle” is poppycock.
I asked Natural England to provide me with the scientific evidence. It sent me a slim paper repeating its assertions, with a long list of academic references. So I read them. The academic references that Natural England said supported its position argued the reverse. They made it clear that there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the aquatic environment.
As I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I gave written evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point. I will not list all the ways in which I said that the scientific papers contradicted the Natural England stance but, in summary, it disregarded a whole range of natural mitigation factors, including: confusing adsorption with absorption; denying percolation to the underlying aquifer; ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils that are found in the Yare catchment and along the River Wensum; the related effects of high soil pH in locking up phosphates; the effect of dilution by rainwater and the flows out to sea; and the incorporation and deposition of organic manures in the crops and along the brooks and streams.
The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooked up by Natural England. In short, Natural England’s interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. Its justification used selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence.
Under the regulations, the test is one of significant harm. Natural England has misdirected itself and advised Ministers to substitute “significant” with “any”. How can it be trusted if it acts in this way? Its misrepresentation of the risk of the flushing of toilets in new homes has allowed it to prosecute a war on the housebuilding industry without justification. It is the enemy of growth. I can hardly believe I am going to say it, but this is probably the once and only time I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because she has fingered Natural England in the article in the Times referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as the enemy of growth.
Further, I then scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which I found to be loaded with flaws and poor assumptions.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Which amendment is the noble Lord referring to?
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am talking to all of them—particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey but also Amendment 333.
There is more. I scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator. It used the wrong digital elevation model. It used the wrong areas of influence on sewage treatment works. No allowance was made for excess capacity in the sewage treatment works. I am going to come to a very important point in a moment. The incorrect number of residents per property was assumed, which is significant where there are holiday homes. It assumed much greater water consumption for each house than we knew to be the case. The numbers for manures coming from outdoor pig units were underestimated by somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times, by reference to Defra booklet RB209. Suffice it to say that the calculator is orders of magnitude adrift.
There was then a completely arbitrary 20% buffer applied over and above the calculated number for no justifiable reasons. It was all very shoddy. The dodgy statistics have resulted in an extra £5,000 to £15,000 extra tariff per home for every house built in what is essentially the entirety of the district in which I live and its two neighbours.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerning Part 3 has a particular focus on the role and powers of Natural England. Due to the constraints on time this evening, I will not address each amendment in detail. Many of them are rightly probing in nature. They seek clarification, reassurance and, in some cases, correction. Others go further by proposing the removal of references to Natural England entirely, placing the powers instead with the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable to this Parliament. The Secretary of State should in this instance be that of Defra rather than MCHLG, as is suggested in other amendments. I seek clarification from the Minister on this point when she replies. I understand that, as far as EDPs are concerned, Natural England might report to MCHLG rather than Defra. If that were the case I would be appalled because, while Natural England has a lot of scientists who are experts on flora and fauna and Defra has some who understand this, the good thing about Defra civil servants is that they know what they do not know and they go back to Natural England for answers. I would be very worried if EDPs were being driven by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, much of which cannot tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly. We must have a firm answer to that, because it would be very worrying.
I should say at the outset that, later in my speech, I will come on to some of the criticisms of Natural England in terms of this Bill and where its powers should be restricted. However, I will not join in the attacks on Natural England as an institution. I admire greatly my noble friend Lord Caithness’s expertise on biodiversity—he participates in every Bill and adds considerable knowledge to it—but I do not recognise some of the most trenchant criticisms of Natural England in his speeches, both on the previous group and on this one. I have come across its scientific expertise and technical contributions, and I believe that it is widely respected.
My noble friend made a point about staff losses in Natural England. The difficulty is that Natural England is required to recruit highly professional biodiversity students—people with expertise in flora and fauna, and there ain’t many of those about. When they are employed, it is on reasonably low pay; then, as soon as they have got their feet under the table and are highly qualified, they get snapped up by other organisations and Natural England cannot afford to pay at the level required to keep them. Nevertheless, I am confident that it still has sufficient expertise to do its job.
My noble friend Lord Caithness also said that Natural England manages only one national nature reserve. It manages two-thirds of 224 national nature reserves. Criticism was also made of how it runs SSSIs. I was on the board down at Dartmoor when the decision was made. The problem is that Natural England is not allowed to consider any socioeconomic matters, such as the effect on farming. The 2006 Act states simply that, if the scientific evidence is there—that the bugs, beasties, flora and fauna are special and need to be protected—we have no option but to make that decision on scientific grounds. I reject any suggestion that Natural England’s board or others were making perverse decisions on SSSIs and not taking the economy into account.
I say to my noble friend Lady Coffey that it was my understanding that nearly the whole of the coastal path had been signed off and submitted to Ministers for approval. I think that it has nearly all been approved; there may be 20 or 30 miles that have not been. Of course it is not all open yet, because there are construction problems. How do you put a footpath across a mud estuary? There are obstructions from some landowners. I hope that, if not tonight then at some other point, the Minister can answer the question by explaining just how much of the coastal path has been completed by Natural England and the Government.
Those things were slightly not in my brief, but I thought that I would try to deal with some of the points because I was personally involved.
Part 3 hands unprecedented CPO powers to Natural England. These powers will allow Natural England to take land away from owners, not because of public interest infrastructure but to fulfil EDPs. Landowners will be forced to apply for subsidy-style payments from Natural England, yet we are given no detail on how these payments will be set, distributed or enforced; nor are landowners granted the right to refuse. Such a model will fundamentally alter the relationship between the landowner and the state—and do so without adequate consultation, accountability or clear regulatory safeguards.
Under the proposed EDP system, developers will contribute to a centralised fund rather than meeting site-specific environmental obligations. That fund will then be spent by Natural England on generalised environmental improvements elsewhere. This raises serious concerns. We will be not only replacing local mitigation with a remote offsetting scheme but creating a system in which Natural England becomes the operational body, the financial manager and the regulator all in one; in that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller. This is a recipe for conflict of interest, lack of oversight and delivery risk. Natural England will be responsible for monitoring and governing the very schemes that it has designed and funded. Worryingly, there is no separation of powers, no mechanism for appeal and no guarantee of delivery.
The consequences of that will be profound. Planning authorities, which bear the ultimate responsibility for approving development, will rightly be cautious about relying on untested, underfunded and centrally managed EDPs. The result may well be an increase in planning refusals, not fewer. We must look seriously at Natural England’s capacity to carry out this enormous new responsibility. So I ask the Minister: how many EDPs will Natural England be expected to prepare, over what timescale, and with what funding and staffing?
Despite huge increases in funding by the last Government, we know that Natural England is still underresourced and understaffed to do all the new work that it will have to do. As it stands, it does not have the capacity to deliver what Part 3 is asking of it. Beyond funding, it will have the problem of finding the skilled ecologists required to make this work—hundreds of them on top of the thousands of new planners, builders and tradespeople needed for our broader planning ambitions. As I said earlier, as Natural England is competing to get those experts, you can bet that outside bodies and developers will also be grabbing them so that they can have answers and challenge the EDP decisions. The issues of funding certainty and operational capacity are not theoretical; they are central. The funding pipeline through the nature restoration fund is inherently unpredictable. How can Natural England plan and deliver on this basis?
Lastly, I turn to the proportionality of the powers that we are considering. Under Part 3, Natural England will be granted forcible entry powers, compulsory purchase order powers and the ability to set its own fees, all without direct parliamentary accountability. These powers could extend even to gardens and allotments—a proposition that should give all noble Lords some pause.
I know the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group and that we can engage constructively with her on this issue moving forward. I end as I began by saying, yes, these are the criticisms I have of the proposed powers in the Bill, but I do not accept some of the more trenchant criticisms of the success of Natural England to date. Yes, mistakes have been made and there are difficulties, but nevertheless there are a lot of good people trying to do a good job for biodiversity in this country, and I was one of them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeking to amend Clauses 53 to 55, 57 to 59, 86 and 88 of the Bill. I will consider the amendments together as they relate to the role of Natural England and who can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP.
I turn to the amendments that seek to remove Natural England as the body that can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP named in the Bill, as well as adding Natural England to the list of consultees for an EDP. We believe that Natural England is the most suitable delivery body, given its expertise in relation to protected sites and species, existing statutory functions and powers and ability to work right across England. Removing Natural England as the body that can undertake the role of developing and implementing an EDP would also remove the intentional checks and balances between the role of Natural England and the Secretary of State. I confirm that, as it stands in the Bill, the Secretary of State referred to is that for MHCLG, but clearly Defra and MHCLG work very closely together during this process.
Natural England is responsible for developing an EDP for submission to the Secretary of State and the implementation of that EDP after it has been made. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Secretary of State is accountable for determining that a draft EDP meets the overall improvement test, making the EDP and taking remedial action if delivery falls short.
Were the amendments to pass and all legal responsibilities passed to the Secretary of State, Natural England, as the Government’s adviser on the natural environment, would still need to support the Secretary of State in preparing and delivering conservation measures. However, without being named in the Bill, it would not have the necessary powers and functions to enable efficient delivery or to provide assurance of the rigour of an EDP independently of the Secretary of State.
The Bill contains many safeguards to ensure that the body, which is charged with developing and implementing an EDP, performs its role to enable development and deliver improved environmental outcomes. With these safeguards, and recognising the relevant expertise held in Natural England, we feel it is right to reflect in the Bill the central role that Natural England will play.
More broadly, I highlight that the Government are taking concerns about the efficacy of the regulatory landscape incredibly seriously and are already taking action off the back of the Corry review—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for recognising that—to ensure that the regulatory landscape and all the relevant actors in the system are performing as effectively as possible, because we need to give greater confidence. We are already expediting several of the recommendations made by Dan Corry, and I will mention a few of those.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today. I should have mentioned my noble friend Lord Caithness, who co-signed a lot—pretty much every single amendment—in that group. I am grateful to him. The Minister may have attracted a few more questions than she answered in certain areas, but I am sure that we will return to aspects of this on Report.
I assure noble Lords that I am not trying to carry out a big attack on Natural England. We want it to succeed at improving nature, but there are too many examples of it already having stuff to get on with, such as SSSIs. I will debate separately with my noble friend Lord Blencathra what I said about the coastal path being an example, because I am relying on data that was published just last month. There are other stories I could tell, but they could perhaps wait for another group or another debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP and they must comply with any such guidance.(5) Guidance issued under subsection (4) above may include—(a) where and how draft EPDs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP,(c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures, and(d) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and (iii) to ensure that the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would clarify that the Secretary of State may issue statutory guidance to Natural England or any person preparing an EDP, with they must which comply. We have heard concerns during debates on Part 3 of the Bill about Natural England’s ability to manage EDPs. We also know that 160,000 houses are being held back by Natural England’s guidance on nutrient neutrality. This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has greater control over the process by which EDPs are made. This would give Ministers the tools they need to ensure that Part 3 is effective in delivering on their intentions.
Does the Minister agree that this discretionary power granted to Ministers would be helpful in a hypothetical circumstance where Natural England’s implementation of EDPs does not follow the Government’s intentions? I will be arguing in later groups, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey, that Natural England should continue to report solely to the Secretary of State for Defra rather than to MHCLG as is planned in this Bill. I am deeply concerned that reporting to two separate departments is likely to lead to significant complications in management, direction and allocation of resources.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra are sensible. Amendment 270A would require Natural England to have regard to any local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP. The interaction between EDPs, the mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity net gain is complex for developers already, but the interaction between EDPs and other strategies for local nature recovery is also complex, especially where the conservation measures specified within an EDP interact with them. My noble friend is right that these should be taken into account by Natural England, and we are interested to hear whether the Government will accept this amendment.
Amendment 277A limits the number of EDPs that Natural England may make each year. This speaks to questions about Natural England’s suitability as the body for making EDPs. I know that several noble Lords have expressed their frustration with specific cases where Natural England has not got things right. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what assurances she has had from Natural England in respect of its plans to ensure that it has the appropriate staffing and skills in place to deliver its functions under Part 3 of the Bill efficiently and effectively. This part of the Bill is designed to unlock development, so any delays or mistakes that have to be resolved at Natural England will hinder the achievement of that overall objective.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness are all sensible amendments that probe some of the crucial questions on EDPs. The reality is that we have still not got real clarity about how well EDPs will fit into the existing environmental protections regime. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has done some very good work on trying to understand, as the Minister described earlier, exactly how this new process for developers fits into the wider picture. I hope that the Minister can help clarify these issues further from the Dispatch Box today. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231, moved by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and will also speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Currently, the Bill requires the EDP to set out the measures to be taken to address the identified impact on environmental features and to achieve overall improvement. However, no justification or explanation is required, and I believe that that is wrong.
Amendment 249 is needed to ensure that an EDP states that the scientific basis for the conservation measures is considered appropriate, as this will provide greater confidence in the ability of the EDP to contribute to an overall improvement and therefore improved outcomes for nature. Monitoring will also be key to achieving success, as required by Clause 57(7), so it is important that this and associated costs are set out in the EDP under Clause 55(6). In addition, this amendment seeks to link the EDP with local nature recovery strategies and other relevant policies, so that it is clear how it contributes to local nature, and to identify the time frame required, given that this would vary in accordance with the impact being addressed.
Amendment 274 requires Natural England to define at an early stage the proposed conservation measures and then seek expressions of interest from persons or organisations as to their suitability to deliver these. This is key, as it opens up the opportunity for private sector involvement and would also help NE to meet its obligation under Section 57(2). I pose the same question as I did earlier to the Minister: given how Natural England has treated BioCore, as I mentioned earlier, what confidence can she give the Committee that Natural England will treat the private sector in a proper and fair manner when it comes to EDPs? If it does not, it will only be doing EDPs itself, and it will become state-owned and a disaster.
I turn now to Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and myself. This amendment refers to the land use framework, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, when we were discussing Amendment 214. I am sorry that she is not in her place. This amendment is to ensure that the choice of land and the choice of land management practice to be used for an EDP are not directly contrary to the principles laid out in the coming land use framework. In the same way that some of us might balk at the idea of using first-class food-producing land for, say, solar panels, we might equally balk at such high-production land being set aside solely for biodiversity. I emphasise the word “solely”, because you can produce food and biodiversity from the best land if it is managed properly. I believe it would be sensible if this Bill pre-empted the production of the land use framework and made allowance for its appearance on the scene.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I attended the drop-in session last week with representatives of Natural England and listened carefully to what the Minister said in winding up the previous group. We are starting to get a feel for how the process by which we might even get to the start line under Clause 53 will work. There will be a process by which Natural England proposes some research, identification, some assessment of some proposals—whether it be for bats, bluebells or barnacles, it does not really matter. It will make recommendations to Ministers, and there will be some proposals and presumably some draft procurement, because with the proposal must come some sort of idea of how the EDP is to be done. There will be some consultation, selection, regulations, pricing, final procurement and legal work. I think the figure that came to mind when we had the drop-in was that it will take about three and a half years. There are less than four years of this Government remaining—three and three-quarters.
So, if the process contemplated by Clause 53 proceeds, it will not result in a single new home being delivered and occupied within this Parliament. What sort of timescale does the Minister have for the implementation and the first benefits? When will the first person be able to move into a home that has been unlocked by these EDP processes?
There is another point. Before we even get to that stage, there has to be an approach to what Natural England, if it acts as the operator, will be providing. Will it be offering to developers a permit or a licence? A permit tends to be a tradable asset, but the last thing that anybody in Defra who has a long memory will want is to go back to the days of milk quotas, whereas a licence can be surrendered at the point at which it is not needed. We need clarity on this before we even get to the consultation side on the EDP. Then there is the multiple layering: we have biodiversity net gain for 30 years and nutrient neutrality for 80 years, while the EDP is made to last for only 10 years. We need some clarity.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 253 in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort as to the Government’s intention towards the private schemes—after all, the Minister and I were both involved in the Environment Bill when it was going through. We set up a system where people were making 30-year commitments to look after a piece of land properly, and now the whole system appears to have been turned on its head. No one knows what its future is, nor whether they should be going ahead with the schemes that they have put together to provide the biodiversity net gain where it cannot be provided on the site.
One farm owned by my local council is entirely suitable for restoration of the best quality chalk grassland, but the scheme is dead in the water. Nobody knows what the Government’s intentions are. Will this be viable? When we get EDPs, will everything be undermined by Natural England doing it itself? Will there be a role for the private sector in this area? Nothing is certain any more.
When you set out to get people involved for 30 years, there really ought to be an understanding on both sides of the House that the 30 years should be respected and that we should try to keep things stable for that length of time. Can the Government give me, and the people I find myself talking to, a real understanding of what their intentions are with respect to all that the private sector has done to date and might do in the future? What direction are we setting out in and what comfort can the Government give that it is worthwhile for the sector continuing to do what it has started to do? I should be very grateful to hear.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We cannot think about EDPs in splendid isolation. It is important that we as a Committee look at the wider context, including biodiversity net gain, that the EDPs will slot into. In that regard, it is incredibly important that, before we get to Report, the Government make clear their response to the consultation that they launched on biodiversity net gain, which closed before recess. If the Government were to decide to significantly change biodiversity net gain for the smaller sites that are up for grabs, it would have hugely detrimental impacts for the environment. It is important for us to know that before Report, so that we can then think about other amendments we might wish to bring forward.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 261 is to be considered in this group. Specifically, it would require that an EDP must pay not just regard but due regard to the local nature recovery strategy that has been published by the appropriate public authorities for that area.
This matters. We have been on this journey, right across the country. I genuinely believe that, rather than the EDPs we are debating, the local nature recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature in this country. The reason for that is that local people know what is going on, and have a sense of the relationship between place and their community, and there are powers in local government to consider not only planning decisions but other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the local nature recovery strategies are being made at county level, though that is not true in every geographic county. There are some unitary councils—such as Northamptonshire, though I cannot remember the reason now—where they are split in two, which is somewhat sad.
Nature knows no boundaries of administrative convenience of how councils are determined. Building on the Lawton principles, which will be absolutely vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery, it is important that public authorities at the higher level—key to this is that it is the upper tier, not the lower tier, that tends to do the planning—have due regard to the discussions about what has been put in place. That will have already gone through extensive consultation, as is happening right now, right around the country.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group of degrouped amendments, which all look at various aspects of the relationship between Natural England and the scope and framework of timetables for an EDP. I will speak to Amendments 231, 249, 253C and 274. Taken together, they are about strengthening the framework for environmental delivery plans and helping to provide further clarity, safeguards and accountability. I am reading all those amendments as having a probing nature, asking questions and seeking further clarification from the Minister.
Amendment 231, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seeks clarification that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance to Natural England or any designated authority on how an environmental delivery plan is prepared. I assume this is about ensuring consistency across the country, setting clear frameworks for public consultation and providing further protections.
Amendment 249, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is about adding detail and transparency. This amendment would require environmental delivery plans to be monitored and to show their scientific basis, alignment with local policies and the timeframes for addressing environmental impacts. Again, this is about making sure that plans stand up to scrutiny and deliver measurable results.
My noble friend has already spoken to Amendment 253C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so I will note the comments that have been made already.
Amendment 274, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord, Caithness, would require Natural England at the outset to define the measures it believes necessary and to invite expressions of interest for their delivery from persons or organisations.
Finally, Amendment 277A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would limit the number of EDPs Natural England is expected to prepare in the first two years to four in the first year and 12 in the second, and, if capacity permits, that that could be extended. I assume that this is a probing amendment. It would definitely be better if it was. I am interested in the Minister’s response to how many EDPs the Government think there is capacity for.
Taken together, as I said, these are probing amendments seeking further clarification from the Government.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which Natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. These matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, how the EDP relates to local policies, the local nature recovery strategy, the land use framework and the timeframe required to address environmental impacts. The Bill, as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments that we have already tabled, requires these matters to be taken into account. I can therefore assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary, as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing an EDP.
Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP: first, requiring the conservation measures to be used to address the environmental impact of development to be defined; secondly, creating a pre-consultation period for EDPs, during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies; and, thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should the EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed in the existing provisions in Clause 55. The existing provisions also allow Natural England to delegate functions to other bodies, including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method and creating an additional pre-consultation period would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. The land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in Defra, such as the food strategy, will obviously be part of any consideration. We all work together very closely. We talk to each other, which may surprise some noble Lords, because we want these to be delivered effectively.
Amendment 231 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP, specifying various topics that this guidance may cover. It would then require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with this guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters that Natural England must have regard to when carrying out functions under this part. Guidance should be used to guide Natural England, not to compel it. This would be more appropriate for a regulation-making power, which is subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter and will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP.
We believe that Amendment 277A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be unnecessary, as Natural England will operate only within its capacity when it is producing EDPs.
Turning to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 253C, regarding the interrelation of the NRF model and existing biodiversity net gain arrangements, I assure noble Lords that the NRF and biodiversity net gain are distinct but complementary policies. The NRF will focus on enabling development that encounters specific environmental obligations relating to impacts on protected sites and species, whereas BNG applies to all new developments, bar the limited exceptions.
I come to the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, regarding the consultation on BNG, when we would get its outcome and whether that would be before Report. It is a pertinent question, and I will take it back and look into it for noble Lords.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to give him reassurance, the NRF will not affect the existing requirement to deliver BNG. That is a free-standing obligation outside the NRF. I hope that, with this clarification, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
May I just ask whether the Minister would give some consideration to the question I posed: at what stage, following the pattern set out in Clause 53 and all the rounds of consultation, procurement and devising of schemes, does she think the first dwelling house will be completed and somebody occupies it? Will it be in this Parliament, or the next?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, I cannot give a precise date to the noble Lord, but we know that Natural England has indicated that the areas on which it has substantial evidence and information at the moment—for example, nutrient neutrality and on newts—are the ones that it will move ahead for. These are the areas that it already has the information on to produce an early EDP.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said. She confirmed that the EDP will state the scientific basis for the conservation measures proposed. What happens if one thinks that the scientific basis is wrong? Given Natural England’s track record so far, how does one get to challenge that when one thinks it is wrong? That is going to be very important.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I cannot remember whether it was in the previous debate or the one before that, but I clarified that a vehicle for challenge is available. It is there. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the previous debate or the one before that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply to this group. If Ministers choose to press ahead with Part 3 of the Bill, developers, local authorities and other interested parties need clarity on how EDPs will work in practice.
We are going to return to the question of private sector involvement in EDPs and the duration and timing of EDPs in later groups. I would just say that, on the guidance point, it is far from reassuring if that guidance is coming from the MHCLG on the environmental impact of these EDPs. It just seems completely wrong, and we will return to that later. In the meantime, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“(6A) When specifying the maximum amount of development in reference to the metrics in subsection (6), Natural England must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 233, I shall also speak to Amendment 283A in my name. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has Amendments 281A to 282 in his name, all of which sit within this important group concerning consultation on environmental delivery plans.
As ever, the detail matters, and in this case the missing detail is the voice of those most directly affected—the landowners and farmers who will be expected not only to comply with, but often to deliver the outcomes envisaged in EDPs.
As my noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned at Second Reading, the Secretary of State in the other place remarked that,
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment. Nowhere in the Bill, however, do we see any requirement for Natural England to consult land managers and farmers or, indeed, to work with them at all in delivering environmental improvement within EDPs.
At a time when the Government impose the family death tax on farms, slash delinked payments and slam shut the door on SFI applications with minimal notice, I am surprised that Ministers have not seized this opportunity to allow farmers and landowners to be part of the solution, commercially and practically, by providing environmental services to developers or to Natural England itself.
That brings me to the amendments in my name. Amendment 233 ensures that when Natural England is specifying the maximum amount of development permissible under an EDP, it must consult qualified surveyors from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This is not a bureaucratic embellishment. Instead, it is about ensuring that land value, local economic conditions and development viability are properly understood by professionals who work in this space every day. Without their input, we risk setting thresholds that are arbitrary, potentially unworkable and, in some cases, detrimental to both development and conservation goals. Let me take a moment to explain why this is not merely desirable but essential.
Clause 54(5) and (6) require Natural England to determine and
“specify the maximum amount of development”
that an EDP may apply to, and this may be defined, according to the Bill, by area, on floor space, the number of buildings or units, the values or expected values, or the scale, in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These are not ecological metrics, they are economic, planning and valuation judgments, yet quite simply, Natural England does not have, in my opinion, a single person who knows how to do these metrics.
Some of my noble friends may profoundly disagree with me on this, but when Natural England considers scientific criteria for SSSIs, it produces experts of the highest calibre, world-renowned specialists in species and habitat conservation. That is the strength of Natural England, but valuing property is not. We do not need to speculate on this. I am not revealing any board confidences here, because Natural England’s own 2023-24 annual accounts make this crystal clear. On heritage assets, it states:
“There is valuation uncertainty affecting Natural England’s heritage assets because there is limited market evidence of comparable assets being bought and sold”.
That line stems from a change in international accounting standards that required Natural England to revalue its national nature reserves from an historical rating to a current one. For three years, not one auditor, not one surveyor, not a single person in Natural England could arrive at an agreed valuation. Why? Because Natural England does not do this work; it was never designed to. So I ask: if Natural England cannot put a value on a nature reserve, which, depending on your view, is either absolutely priceless or worthless because you cannot build on it, how on earth can it make informed decisions on the scale or value of commercial development? How can biodiversity experts determine whether, say, five acres of housing is better or worse than five acres of an Amazon distribution shed or an AI data centre drawing on vast quantities of water?
These are not theoretical questions, they are real-world decisions with significant implications, and Natural England is asked to pronounce on them in Clause 54. How can Natural England assess the number of units within buildings or predict how those units might be used, particularly in commercial or mixed-use developments, when such usage can change frequently depending on the occupancy of the tenants? Lastly, how can Natural England pronounce on values or expected values, which lie firmly in the realm of chartered surveyors, when even they would preface their valuation with caveats or “depending on local markets”, planning conditions, service access, environmental strengths, and so on.
This clause as it stands is unworkable. At best, it asks Natural England to make judgments it is unqualified to make. At worst, it risks undermining both development viability and environmental outcomes through guesswork or error. Amendment 233, therefore, is not only a safeguard, it is an enabler. It would ensure that decisions are made with the right expertise at the table. Without it, we are, in effect, asking marine biologists to assess logistic parts and entomologists to forecast land values.
Amendment 283A is a practical one. It would change the consultation period on draft EDPs from 28 to 40 working days. For many, 28 days is simply not long enough to engage meaningfully with what can be highly technical and significant documents. Forty working days is not excessive. It aligns with best practice elsewhere in the planning system and gives consultees a fair chance to respond constructively.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough, I also commend his Amendments 281A and 281B, which would require Natural England to consult with both farmers and landowners after an EDP has been prepared. It is crucial that consultation is not limited to the early stages but continues throughout the process, particularly once the practical implications for those on the ground become clear. Successful environmental management depends on partnership.
These amendments are not hostile to the principle of EDPs. On the contrary, they would help to make them work. They would build trust. They would increase buy-in. They would make the outcomes more deliverable. If we treat farmers and landowners as partners, not passive recipients of policy handed down from above, we are far more likely to achieve the landscape restoration that we all want. Indeed, when I joined the Natural England board in 2018, it had just launched a policy called “working in partnership”, or something like that. I cannot remember the exact name, but it was moving the whole strategy from one of merely trying to enforce things into working in partnership with landowners.
To that end, we also support the sentiment of Amendment 280 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, which rightly seeks to ensure that neighbouring authorities with a local nature reserve strategy must be consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not in his place at the moment, but when we were talking about EDPs, he said that a senior Natural England official said it was the most exciting thing in his lifetime. Maybe that is the same senior official who told us three years ago when looking at the Environment Act 2021 of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that local nature recovery strategies were the greatest step forward in nature recovery in British history and he was really excited about them. I presume he has now switched his loyalty to EDPs instead. Local nature recovery strategies are absolutely vital to delivering nature recovery in every inch of England. Amendment 285 makes it clear that all the bodies listed under Clause 59 should be consulted by Natural England. That is good governance.
We are asking for something very modest here: that those who will be most affected by EDPs have a seat at the table and the time to consider what has been asked of them. These are constructive, proportionate and necessary amendments, and I hope the Government will consider them carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 280 is in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for explaining it so succinctly. It is exactly that; in this part of the Bill, there is a whole list of local authorities mentioned as being required to be consulted. I agree with that official from three years ago that local nature recovery strategies are going to be the thing that makes a lot of this happen. My amendment is self-explanatory, and I hope that Ministers will include it on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I rise very briefly to speak to this group of amendments, which are all on consultations on EDPs. Considering the time, I am going to be even more brief than I have been before. While I welcome and look forward to the Minister’s response to all the amendments in this group, I particularly support Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, which all address the consultation requirements for EDPs. Those noble Lords who have heard me speak in the House on many occasions will know that I love consultation. It is really important, but it is important that it is also done properly.
As I set out in my opening statement on the NRF model as a whole, we recognise the importance of allowing relevant authorities, businesses and individuals to have their say on the development of EDPs. It is for this reason we have included a requirement that all EDPs are subject to public consultation. We have also proposed government amendments to clarify the consultation requirements when amending an EDP.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a number of questions about Natural England’s planning and evaluation expertise in bringing forward an EDP. Many of his questions related directly to the planning process and such decisions would be taken by the local planning authority or, of course, the Secretary of State if it was a nationally significant infrastructure project. Looking at what Natural England’s role is, discussion with the relevant experts would of course be an important part of any development of an EDP. Natural England would use surveys and consider the best available scientific evidence to assess how developments of any given type will impact on the relevant environmental feature. This process will then allow Natural England to set a maximum amount of development which can be covered by that EDP. The Bill also gives the opportunity for this to be included in guidance.
Local nature recovery strategies are an important tool protecting nature, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for highlighting the important role that these can play in informing EDPs. There is already a requirement in the Bill for Natural England to consider local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP and a further duty to consult local planning authorities for the relevant area, which should be expected to include consideration of their LNRS. We also understand that, depending on the content of an EDP, certain sectors may have particular interests in specific EDPs, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for raising their interests at this stage.
Through the existing public consultation requirements, any group, business or individual—this would of course include farmers and land managers—who is affected by an EDP will have the opportunity to respond to the proposed EDP and raise any concerns. For the purposes of each EDP, it would not be practical for Natural England to go to each business in a whole sector, such as the fishing sector, due to the large number that it would need to consult. Nor would the Government wish to impose any duty or obligation to respond to a consultation on private businesses.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I need to stress the importance of involving farmers and landowners as partners working with the Government on this if we are to be successful in restoring our environment and getting proper nature recovery.
The Minister has just said that 28 days is a minimum. The normal planning rule is 40, so why not put in the Bill that it should be 40 days, rather than the minimum, which the Secretary of State might extend? I would be sceptical that the Secretary of State would extend those dates—I suspect they will want the minimum possible for any consultation.
The points we have raised today reinforce that, without proper engagement, we risk implementing policies that may be impractical or detrimental both economically and environmentally. The Minister said that of course Natural England would consult various experts on the size of units and the cost evaluations. That is an awful lot of different people to consult. I am not convinced that the answer she gave will be practical. The idea of involving the chartered surveyors is probably the only way to go, but I will read again very carefully what she said.
The amendments before us are modest and crucial. They seek to embed meaningful consultation throughout the life cycle of environmental delivery plans, ensuring that those who must deliver these outcomes have a real voice at the table. This is not about opposition but collaboration. It is building trust and getting buy-in. If you have them sitting around the table and being consulted, they are more likely to buy in, deliver better and have more sustainable outcomes for the environment and rural communities alike. Having said that, and having listened to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
Member's explanatory statement
This seeks to ensure that there is no time drift from the granting of planning permission to the start of the delivery of the EDP.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 234, I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 236, in reverse order. Clause 54(7) relates to the start and end dates of an EDP. To ensure meaningful outcomes, the EDP timeframe should not be specified in legislation as it will clearly depend on the nature of the environmental impact and the conservation measures required.
I am sure we all agree that restoring and recreating some habitats can take considerable time to achieve full functionality. Given climate change and other environmental impacts, EDP measures will require adaptive management, hence the need for review and ongoing monitoring. What happens at the end of 10 years? How do we retain the overall improvement? How do we know that a developer will not change the new site? How do we know that a farmer will not return the site to food production in the wrong way? These are hugely important questions in order to fulfil an EDP and I do not believe it should be limited to 10 years.
Given that it is going to take a long time, I need now to look at the start date, because it is vital that, the moment planning permission is granted and thus the loss of a protected site or species is imminent, Natural England should get on with it. According to Clause 58, there is a lot of process and consultation to be carried out, and so not a moment is to be lost. We must bear in mind that the Government are legally committed to halting the decline in our biodiversity by 2030. The concern of the start date moved my noble friend Lord Cameron to poetry. He sends his apologies to Andrew Marvell, as he penned these words:
“Had we but world enough and time,
Delay my Lords would be no crime.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near.
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity
Where nature bids us all good-bye”.
We need to fire a starting gun to ensure that Natural England gets on with it, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs, as drafted in this Bill and despite the welcome improvements offered by the Government, create considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address the harm being done elsewhere.
Amendment 235A in my name recognises that 10 years is a blink of an eye in environmental terms. It might take only days to destroy a natural environment, but it takes decades to restore it and centuries to return to a more natural state. In our environment, the fastest-maturing native trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century. Likewise, it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatland.
My Amendment 235B suggests 30 years as the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years, as opposed to 10, is simply that this is a proxy for our own generational timing; that in itself is appealing, but this is also consistent with biodiversity net gain units. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard, I prefer this to Amendment 236 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. However, his Amendment 234 is a sensible measure that would ensure there is a coincidence in the timing of the EDP and the commencement of the development.
One of the concerns expressed by developers is the reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that development occurring. I am sure the Minister can understand this concern and will be keen to ensure that developers do not carry that reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.
I hope the Minister can reassure us in her reply to this short debate that these concerns are being addressed. However, there is a strong case that these issues should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than relying on guidance that can change over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose in the Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will speak to his Amendment 265, which has a notable similarity to Amendment 237 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. If the noble Lord were here, I am sure he would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for co-signing the amendment, as I did.
Amendment 265 deals with one of the fundamental concerns that we have with EDPs: the issue of timing. As it currently stands, if you have to engage with the habitats regulations or biodiversity net gain, remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken. In contrast, that is not the case for the EDPs. There is the fundamental question: what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, do not happen? They might not happen for a number of reasons; for example, because some of the money may not come in from the developers—they have the right to appeal, as we have heard in earlier debates—or because not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all the measures can be delivered. In that case, you do not get enough of a quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for what may have already taken place in a site that has already been damaged.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, does two things. First, it calls for an implementation schedule for an EDP, and I believe that the Minister, in summing up, will say whether government Amendment 245A partly addresses that by promising an implementation schedule. However, I have not seen anything from the government amendments that deals with the more fundamental issue that the remedial measures for an EDP do not come until after the damage has been done. Secondly, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that, if Natural England believes that there will be irreversible damage, those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is the issue on which we are seeking some reassurances from the Minister this morning, and if we do not get them, I am sure that we will return to it on Report.
Earl Russell (LD)
I will very briefly speak to my Amendment 237. I apologise to the Committee; I had not realised just how similar my amendment was to the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend made all the arguments that I was going to make. I absolutely agree there is a risk here, and I think the Committee wants further reassurance. It is a real worry to lots of people that this damage can be done before mitigation measures are put in place. Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is probably better worded than my own, so I will likely not press my amendment between now and Report. These are important issues, and we seek further reassurance on these matters. Without that, I am sure that an amendment doing this will come up on Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to conservation measures and their implementation. They seek to add provisions on a range of matters related to the design and implementation of conservation measures. The Bill as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments we have tabled in Committee, already require or enable these matters to be addressed in an EDP. I therefore trust that, in discussing these amendments, I can assure the Committee that the existing provisions, bolstered by the proposed government amendments, already require or enable consideration of the points raised.
Amendment 234, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to require that an EDP start date must be within six months of the date of any planning permission granted in reliance of that EDP. Development cannot rely on an EDP until the EDP is in place, and so planning permission could not be granted in reliance on an EDP without that EDP having been made by the Secretary of State. As the EDP will always be in place before planning consent can be granted in reliance on the EDP, I trust the noble Earl can be assured on this point.
As part of the package of government amendments, we will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures, with specific reference to the timing of development coming forward. This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. This would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature. This would form part of the Secretary of State’s assessment of whether an EDP would pass the overall improvement test. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, proposes a requirement that the end date of an EDP must be appropriate to the conservation measures proposed, and that the EDP must include a review date. The end date of an EDP cannot be more than 10 years from the date it comes into force. This is to ensure that there is clarity that the overall improvement will be achieved no later than 10 years after the EDP is put in place. However, there is nothing to prevent an earlier end date being specified for an EDP where that would be appropriate either for the type of development or the environmental feature.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply; I will have to study it with some care, given the time of night, but a lot of it did not make much sense to me.
The Minister talked about clarity and how the overall improvement needs to be demonstrated by a certain date. She also said that we need to demonstrate an environmental benefit as soon as possible. Nature does not work like that. What if there is a flood? What happens if there is drought for two years? All sorts of things in nature can put down the best schemes. You can certainly demonstrate all this on paper from Marsham Street, York or Peterborough but, out in the real world—if only Natural England would get out there—it is a very different story. My noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned planting deciduous trees. By the time they are 10 years old, they are not very high; they still need a heck of a lot of work. Blanket bog takes years. Goodness, I have lived on blanket bog in Caithness; I know that you cannot re-wet it overnight.
This is environmental theory, not practice, but I will read what the Minister said. We will come back to this on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to Clause 55, line 35 would secure that each of the environmental features which are likely to be negatively affected by a development are identified in the EDP and the ways in which that effect is caused is also identified.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was talking about the various views that were being taken on Part 3. The beauty of Committee is that we can ride all those horses. The particular horse with which I am concerned is trying to find for the Bill precise drafting language that achieves precisely what is intended and is as clear as possible about what we intend.
As we get into Clause 55, we are in one of the central provisions where the environmental features and the impact of development on such features must be identified, all in the environmental delivery plan, as must the conservation measures needed to secure the overall impact. We will come on to debate the overall improvement test. I note that Amendment 266 is in this group but I am not quite sure why; I think properly it should be in the group relating to the overall improvement test, which we will get to on Wednesday.
The most important amendment in this group is not mine but the Government’s Amendment 247A, the effect of which is to add specific language about the conservation measures that will have to be taken offsite and what is required in those to secure the overall improvement test: that they will
“make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than measures that address the environmental impact of development on the feature at the protected site itself”.
That is a helpful amendment as part of the package of amendments that have enabled the structure of the Bill and the objectives to be slightly better than they started out.
Amendment 238 comes at the beginning of Clause 55 and relates to the identification of the environmental features likely to be negatively affected by a development. We know what the protected features of a protected site or a protected species are because those are set out in Clause 92, on the interpretation of this part. I am interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has to say about her amendment and I will wait to hear that.
Amendment 238 would amend Clause 55(1), where the Bill says that an environmental delivery plan must identify
“one or more environmental features which are likely to be … affected”.
I want to check precisely what the Government are trying to achieve by the words “one or more”. If they are worried that an environmental delivery plan may be challenged because not all the environmental features are identified, I do not think this drafting is helpful. If an environmental development plan does not identify an environmental feature that is likely to be affected by development, it is potentially able to be challenged in any case, and I do not think the language “one or more” would escape from that risk. The environmental features are the starting point of an environmental delivery plan. If one does not correctly identify the environmental features likely to be affected, that plan seems to me by its nature to be flawed. So why the words “one or more”? There will not be none or there would not be an environmental delivery plan. If there is more than one, it would be wrong for the environmental delivery plan not to take account and identify those, and leaving them out would make it flawed.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to my amendments, I will talk to them briefly. First, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, which improve Part 3 processes in response to the pressures in the other place on the Bill and the OEP verdict of significant environmental regression.
My Amendment 240A is a bit nerdy at this time of night but noble Lords should pay attention because there will be an examination at the end. It replaces “may” with “must”, in that
“environmental features identified in an EDP must”—
not may—
“be either a protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species”.
I think the clause as drafted could result in unintended consequences. For example, Natural England might identify an assemblage of species rather than a single species as the environmental feature covered by the EDP, such as the entire bat assemblage of a particular area—I use the word “bat” advisedly.
If this were done, the overall improvement in that feature could be said to occur if, say, half the species in that assemblage were expected to benefit, even if one or two of the rarest and most important species in the assemblage were to be driven to local extinction. It would risk this trade-off within a sort of bulk buy of species, and would definitely risk that species that are more difficult to make alternative provision for would be sacrificed in exchange for benefits being delivered to the easier species. My amendment would require EDPs to address species and features individually, not as part of an EDP bulk purchase.
Amendment 251A in my name is a separate amendment, which raises an issue that I do not think has been raised elsewhere. It seeks to establish what happens with the ongoing protection of habitats that are created by way of compensation under an EDP. It cannot be right that compensation habitats are created under an EDP to replace species and habitat features that currently have the highest level of protection when the habitat that is there to compensate for them has no level of protection whatever. That cannot be the right outcome but, from the way I read the Bill, after the EDP’s end date, there is no clarity about their conservation status.
In the past, there have been pretty notorious examples of compensation habitat subsequently being trashed, often by successive development, neglect or land-use change. When the extension of the M4 across the Gwent Levels was being proposed, we had the distressing consequence that the habitat that was created to compensate for the road extension was promptly put back up for grabs when the next road extension took place. That was fought off, mercifully, but the further road extension was going to go through the very compensated habitat that was put in place for the first road extension.
I was involved in the creation of the new village of Cambourne, just outside Cambridge, which had compensatory habitat designed into the development. The developers worked very successfully with Natural England and the local wildlife trust. I declare an interest as a former president of that wildlife trust. The habitat that was created was very valuable for wildlife and it offset the development impacts. It is now much loved by residents but, lo and behold, 20 years later, East West Rail is going right through one of the major wildlife sites that was created. That cannot be right: we cannot be providing compensation for it then to be up for grabs for any use.
So my Amendment 251A seeks protection in perpetuity. I cannot think of any other length of time with any logic to it, because the reality is that the sites being destroyed or damaged have protection in perpetuity, so the sites that are created in compensation for them should have protection in perpetuity.
I thank the Minister for taking an interest in this at her drop-in session last week, when I think I heard her give an undertaking to look seriously into what needed to happen on this as yet unaddressed issue.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 250 is an important clarifying measure that would ensure that, when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of that EDP. This addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that conditions could be sought or imposed on developments beyond the defined remit of the EDP, which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.
By linking conditions strictly to developments within the EDP’s scope, this amendment would protect against regulatory overreach and maintain the principle of proportionality, ensuring that developers are subject only to conditions that are relevant, necessary and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but about ensuring that they are applied fairly and transparently, thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust.
Briefly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 238 to 240 would sharpen the focus of EDPs by requiring that all relevant environmental features are identified and that the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement; it is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system that we are creating.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendments 240A and 251A. These would be important improvements in the Bill.
This short debate has highlighted that further tightening and improvement is still needed in this clause, despite the Government’s welcome amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond encouragingly.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I will introduce Amendment 266, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, is somewhat surprisingly in this grouping. It seeks to ensure that the EDP delivers a significant improvement in the ecology of a habitat, a species or an ecosystem.
I think that the Minister will say, with some justification, that government Amendment 247A in this group addresses this by making it clear that Natural England can do this EDP only if it can contribute to a significant environmental improvement. We welcome that, but I want to press the Minister a bit further on how Natural England will make the judgment that it will deliver a significant environmental improvement. How will it ensure that the information it uses is robust? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has been concerned in debates that I have heard her speak in about whether the modelling that it uses will be sufficient. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned earlier, nature does not always behave as modelling might suggest. How will Natural England make that judgment?
If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was here, I am sure he would thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Whitty, for supporting this amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I begin by speaking to the government amendments in this group, Amendments 246A, 247A and 258B.
In providing flexibility through this new model, the Government have been careful to ensure that these flexibilities are used only where this supports the delivery of better environmental outcomes. That is at the heart of the new approach. Government amendments 246A, 247A and 258B relate to the use of network measures, making it explicit that Natural England can deliver network measures only where it considers that it would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. This would inherently not pass the overall improvement test, because the very essence of irreplaceable habitat is that it cannot be replaced elsewhere.
I turn to the non-government amendments, and first to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Amendments 238, 239 and 240 seek to require an EDP to highlight all the environmental features which may be affected by development and state what the environmental impacts on the environmental feature would be. The Government have been clear that we wish to use EDPs to take a targeted approach to address the impacts of development on specific environmental features. Under this approach, an EDP could be brought forward that addresses the impact on one or more environmental feature, with conservation measures brought forward to address the impact on the identified feature. In response to the question of the noble Lord regarding the wording, this means that any features that are not identified which are covered by the EDP would then need to be considered and addressed under the existing system.
I understand the points that he is making, but the proposed amendment would then require EDPs to be comprehensive in identifying and addressing all the impacts of development on all environmental features. This was never the Government’s intention, as it would add considerable burden to the creation and delivery of EDPs. By taking a targeted approach, we can put EDPs in place to address the specific issues that benefit from the strategic approach. This will unlock development and secure better environmental outcomes. Expanding EDPs in the way proposed by these amendments would result in slowing down delivery and prevent EDPs being used in the targeted way that the Government have envisaged.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response to this short debate. I enjoyed many of the contributions, not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Cambourne was of course in my former constituency. I would say to her that we have not given up on trying to get East West Rail together on the A428 corridor. Perhaps we will talk about that off-site, as we might say in the context of this Bill.
We learn as we go, do we not? I have learned—it was not clear—that the intention regarding the environmental delivery plans is that, once they have identified a development, even though it might impact on an environmental feature, that feature may not necessarily form part of the environmental delivery plan; it may be dealt with under the existing habitat and other regulations.
That is very interesting. However, that being the case—I will not dwell on it, but we may have to come back to it—Amendments 239 and 240, on the ways in which that negative effect is likely to impact on that environmental feature, should all still be included, and if they directly relate to the development they should definitely be included. Those two amendments still have merit in respect of the drafting. We could maybe talk about that at some point. With the hope that we might revisit those points, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 238.