Planning and Infrastructure Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

186: Clause 93, page 122, line 26, after “(1B)” insert “(as inserted by section 171(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)”
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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In the autumn.

Amendment 186 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

187: After Clause 93, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

200: Clause 96, page 127, line 18, at end insert—
“(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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.