Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
12:29 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 55 agreed.
12:42 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 56 agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall just make a quick statement before we continue. Before the first group is debated, I remind the House of some important guidance on Report stage, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly. First, I highlight paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:
“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.
Debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, but a number of contributions on the first day strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny while allowing us to make good progress in good time. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of paragraph 8.82 of the Companion guidance that Members
“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
Speeches appear to be getting longer. If noble Lords follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get to votes in a more timely manner.
Clause 33: Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession
Amendment 47
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove the Secretary of State’s right to compulsorily acquire possession of highway land.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 47 relates to Clause 33. We debated this in Committee at some length, but the result of that debate was not in any sense satisfactory from my point of view. I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the letter written to me by the Minister after the Committee debate, which covered a number of points, including this, but added only to the veil of obscurity surrounding this issue rather than clarifying it.
Perhaps I could just explain the political background to this, which gives rise to concern. As a conservative party, we are the party of property rights, and when we see clauses coming forward that appear to extend the rights of compulsory purchase on behalf of the state, we wish to explore and understand them and see whether they are absolutely necessary—especially when they appear, effectively, as a one-line clause at the bottom of a left-hand page in a Bill that appears to be largely about other matters. As I said in Committee, this issue could well deserve a Bill in itself; it certainly deserves proper scrutiny and clarity about what the clause is doing.
I will give the Government something for free: the National Farmers’ Union strongly supports this clause. I will briefly read out its reasoning for doing so and its account of the clause. It says:
“This is a positive step for landowners as, presently, National Highways can only apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable to it to use the land needed for a scheme. Under the Bill”—
that is, as a result of this clause—
“developers using the Highways Act for a project will be able to temporarily use and possess land rather than acquire it”.
That is a much clearer and better account of what the clause is doing than any I have heard from the Minister or the Government so far. But the first question one has to ask is whether the National Farmers’ Union’s understanding of the clause is correct. Can the Government say what it is doing? For example, in the letter that the Minister sent to me, he said that the clause “put beyond doubt” the department’s “existing power”, but the National Farmers’ Union believes that this is a new power, not a matter of putting something beyond doubt. Legal advice that I have formally taken outside the Chamber suggests that it is indeed a new power and not simply putting something beyond doubt. Can the Government state clearly and crisply what the clause is doing and what is new about it? That is the first question.
The second question relates to the issue of whether the clause can be used for the temporary acquisition of the ownership of land—that would be something akin to requisitioning in the Second World War, and it would be totally new—or whether it relates to the possibility of occupying land, traditionally done by means of a licence, a way leave or something of that sort, so that you have rights over somebody else’s land for a period but the land remains their property throughout. It is unclear which of those two it allows—or is it both?—because the clause refers specifically to “possession or occupation”, suggesting that there is a difference in the minds of the drafters between possession and occupation.
That question is tested by the wording of my amendment, which would leave out the words “possession or”. That would test whether this is tautologous or there is a genuine distinction. If there is a genuine distinction, could the Government explain what it is and whether it includes the temporary acquisition of the title to land in some fashion or other? That would be completely new and definitely worth closer scrutiny. If they are tautologous and there is no distinction, could the Government accede to the proposal in my amendment that one of them be left out, so that we have one that is operative and works?
The third thing is that there is no promise of any guidance to accompany this. In creating this new power—I assert, on advice, that the power is new and does not put something that exists beyond doubt—questions of a practical character arise that should be covered by guidance before it becomes operative. For example, how long can somebody temporarily acquire land for? How long beyond completion of the works are they allowed to keep occupation of the land? It might be as simple as: how long can construction huts be left on the land beyond the point when they are actually needed? What is the state in which the land is to be returned if it is temporarily acquired? That would all be useful to know in strong guidance from the Government that would accompany this new power. Again, that is all completely absent.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, that is a good start to today’s debate. It is a rather arcane topic with which to start the day. I wondered, when I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whether he had actually read the original section in the Highways Act 1980, which the Government intend to—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Excellent. I am pleased that he has, though I wonder whether he has, therefore, understood it. It is surprising that he has chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what would happen with his amendment. Its consequence appears to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use. The Bill provides more assurance for both landowners and those improving or constructing new roads. For us on these Benches, the amendment makes no sense except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for the amendment, which seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works to the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition.
Permanent acquisition of land or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently. This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme.
The rights of an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Furthermore, the power would use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to effect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the National Farmers’ Union. It is not a new power; it is an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used, but the Government’s Bill makes it explicit.
Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority—being a local highway authority or National Highways—a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily. This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. It could involve storing equipment and construction materials or manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway.
Temporary occupation, on the other hand, as the sole remaining power under the amended clause, would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities would be unlikely to use the amended provision. It would risk introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations, leading to an increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.
The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33, as I have said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33, as currently drafted, provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It does not create a new power; it is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately.
Having, I hope, clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not an attempt to own the land. In fact, it is clearly designed not to own the land, so that the title to the land would not change; it would be a right to occupy the land.
Finally, the noble Lord raised the question of how long it would be after works finish that the land can be possessed and whether there would be a need for guidance. That clearly is a subsidiary matter; I will take that subject away and write to him on it afterwards. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, I thought I asked some fairly precise questions, and I do not feel that he has answered the questions with the precision that I was hoping for. Therefore, at the appropriate moment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock
“(1A) Any disapplication of heritage protections under this section must be exercised in a manner that—(a) recognises the value of the United Kingdom’s archaeological and architectural heritage to the nation and to local communities;(b) respects the principle that structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance; and(c) ensures that development under this Act gives due regard to the importance of conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infra- structure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment imposes considerations for any disapplication of heritage protections.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is one area in the Bill where the Government have listened and made significant concessions in the light of the debate in Committee. In Committee, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, challenged the Government to think again about the removal of heritage protections currently provided in the Transport and Works Act. I have retabled the amendment debated in Committee to press the Minister to reconsider.
In Committee also, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, proposed that Clause 41 stand part as the only route to provide important protection for our nation’s heritage. Government Amendment 49 is the answer to those strong arguments: the original Clause 41 is deleted along with the schedule, and a replacement Clause 41 tabled by the Minister.
At the core of the new Clause 41 is the notion of deemed consent; the deemed consent route does not ensure that key heritage duties, such as the duty to have special regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, are included. The Secretary of State therefore makes decisions on whether work to a listed building, scheduled monument or in a conservation area can be given permission, with the provisos of having due regard to. That route enables decisions on those issues to be made more quickly, but it fails the public engagement test that we on these Benches believe is important. However, given the changes proposed by the Minister, we are satisfied that there are protections for heritage sites and trust that all Secretaries of State will use their power with a special and high regard for our heritage. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I speak in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to be here today as she is hosting something that was set up months ago. As a former archaeologist, I am so annoyed by the Government’s attempt to do this. In fact, I have to warn noble Lords that I am going to be annoyed all day, because some of this Bill is absolutely appalling. I therefore very much support Amendment 48. I do not know whether we will vote on it, but I will certainly be there in the Content Lobby if we do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I tabled my Amendment 50 before the Government tabled their own Amendment 49 in this group. Both seek, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, to leave out Clause 41. It is fair to say that that was the part of the Bill that caused the most concern among heritage groups. We heard in Committee about the concerns raised by bodies including the National Trust, the Heritage Alliance and the Government’s own heritage adviser, Historic England. I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who responded to the debate in Committee and is a man who cares about both our heritage and innovation, very sensibly listened to that chorus of disapproval and undertook to look at this matter again in discussion with other Ministers.
I was therefore very pleased when I saw the government amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has tabled in this group, which responds to the concerns raised in Committee, both in this House and in another place, and in the representations made by heritage bodies. I also welcome the fact that she and the Heritage Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, have met heritage groups directly to discuss this and other aspects of the Bill. That is very welcome, and I understand that it is the first of a number of round tables that they will hold on this issue.
Heritage and the construction of new infrastructure are sometimes held up to be in competition, which of course they are not. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, knows, for instance, from his time as chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, a proper celebration of our past can help to inspire and drive the innovation of the future. As we heard in Committee, if development is done in a way that respects the past and the vernacular of local communities, it then has greater support from those communities and is a much speedier and more welcome thing.
Having seen the government amendment, I will not press my Amendment 50 here on Report. I am glad that the Government have listened to the concerns raised in these debates.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am in the rather frightening position of agreeing with Amendment 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—no doubt they are as concerned about my support for them as I am. However, they have raised some very good points here.
I am in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and his desire to delete Clause 41 in its entirety—now with the Government's amendment—but the noble Baronesses who have tabled Amendment 48 deserve some praise. We can all look at buildings, monuments or parts of the countryside and think that they are wonderful and should not be built on or destroyed, but we do not have our valuable heritage determined by such random means. As the amendment makes clear in proposed new sub-paragraph (b),
“structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance”.
That is the key point. These protected sites are not based on the subjective opinions of us or local people, but on an objective determination using nationally approved criteria on what qualifies a building for listed building protection, or to be a scheduled monument or conservation area. Proposed new sub-paragraph (c) merely asks that due regard be given to conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. The question is, how long will that new infrastructure last?
I did a Google search, and this is what I got on typical building lifespan expectations. Standard residential buildings often have a design life of 50 years, with a possible maximum of 100 years. Commercial buildings can vary widely: some modern commercial properties may be constructed with a short design life of just 20 or 30 years, while others, such as high-quality concrete and steel structures, are built to last 100 years or more. Historical and monumental structures can, with constant care, last hundreds or even thousands of years, as seen with some Roman structures.
We destroy our history at our peril. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
On the one hand, we have the magnificent House of Commons next door and this marvellous Palace here. On the other, we have some of those appalling—but, no doubt, award-winning at the time—1970s tower blocks, which we are now flattening as quickly as possible because of their destructive effect on the people forced to reside in them. No Government would dare to demolish Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, nor to drive a road through them, but there are thousands of ancient buildings that, although not as famous or sexy as Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, are a vital part of our history and deserve protection—or, at the very least, special consideration—before they are demolished for some new construction.
In England, there are 9,320 grade 1 listed buildings and 21,782 grade 2 listed buildings. It is estimated that more than 1,000 of these buildings are over 1,000 years old. I cannot imagine any new development that would justify the destruction or damage of one of these buildings —except, possibly, a runway extension at Heathrow. Very few projects would justify it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has amendments in later groups on protecting heritage trees. In Committee and in HS2 Bills, we have debated saving ancient woodlands. Once they are gone, they can never be replaced. The same applies to conservation areas. Amendment 48 does not call for a complete ban; it calls merely for regard to be had to the need to conserve our historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. I commend the noble Baronesses for tabling that amendment and bringing it to the attention of the House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I cannot resist a brief anecdote. When the inner ring road was being built around Birmingham’s city centre in the 1960s, the highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that, unfortunately, both the Pugin-designed Catholic cathedral and the Pugin-designed archbishop’s House next door to it would have to go to make way for the road. When the archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, querying whether it was entirely necessary, the result was that the courteous gentlemen of the highways department went away and rethought the plans somewhat and the archbishop was given a choice: he could lose either the Pugin-designed cathedral or the Pugin-designed house. That explains why, to this day, the cathedral still stands but the house has long since gone. Happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we would see today.
At this point, I wish merely to congratulate those Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill. I also thank the Government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable; what we have now is a great deal more acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 48 and 50, I shall later move government Amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and 260. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, as well as the other noble Lords who have raised this issue during the Bill’s passage. I also thank Peers for their time during the recess, when we discussed this matter at length.
As I have noted previously, the Government have no interest in loosening heritage protections; indeed, we see this country’s heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment. We are clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.
Amendments we have laid to the Bill on heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection while achieving the Government’s goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs.
Through these amendments, we have introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects. This new power follows the same model as the existing long-established power for them to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that, in practice, applicants for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority. This will streamline the process.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the long discussion that we had on this issue during recess and her commitment then to introduce a new clause. In my view, she has responded appropriately and fully to the concerns expressed. With those safeguards for our heritage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Deemed grant of listed building consent etc(1) In the Transport and Works Act 1992, for section 17 (listed buildings and conservation areas) substitute—“17 Listed buildings: England(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in England, the Secretary of State may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) Section 16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under this section as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(3) Section 72(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (duty of special attention to conservation areas) applies to the making of a direction under this section in relation to a building in a conservation area as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building.(4) The provisions of the Listed Buildings Act apply in relation to any listed building consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Secretary of State under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Secretary of State on an application referred under section 12 of that Act.(5) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 62(2)(a) of that Act (decisions of Secretary of State that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(6) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in the Listed Buildings Act (see section 91(1) of that Act);“controlled listed building works in England” means works to which section 7(1) of the Listed Buildings Act (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in England) applies;“listed building consent” means consent under section 8 of the Listed Buildings Act (listed building consent in England);“the Listed Buildings Act” means the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.17A Listed buildings and conservation areas: Wales(1) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled listed building works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that listed building consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(2) On making an order under section 1 or 3 that authorises controlled conservation area works in Wales, the Welsh Ministers may direct that conservation area consent for the works is deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction.(3) Section 96(2) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to listed buildings) applies to the making of a direction under subsection (1) as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to the building concerned.(4) Section 160(1) of HEWA 2023 (duty of special regard to conservation areas) applies—(a) to the making of a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a building in a conservation area, as it would apply to the grant of listed building consent in relation to that building, and(b) to the making of a direction under subsection (2), as it would apply to the grant of conservation area consent in relation to the building concerned.(5) The provisions of HEWA 2023 apply in relation to any consent deemed to be granted by virtue of a direction of the Welsh Ministers under this section as if the consent had been granted by the Welsh Ministers on an application referred under section 94 of that Act.(6) But that does not bring the decision to make the direction within section 182(2)(b) of that Act (decisions of Welsh Ministers that may only be challenged by way of statutory review).(7) In this section—“conservation area” has the same meaning as in HEWA 2023 (see section 210 of that Act);“conservation area consent” means consent under section 162 of HEWA 2023 (conservation area consent in Wales); “controlled conservation area works in Wales” means works to which section 161 of HEWA 2023 (demolition of building in conservation area in Wales) applies;“controlled listed building works in Wales” means works to which section 88 of HEWA 2023 (demolition or alteration in character of a listed building in Wales) applies;“HEWA 2023” means the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023;“listed building consent” means consent under section 89 of HEWA 2023 (listed building consent in Wales).”(2) In section 22 of that Act (validity of orders)—(a) in the heading, for “under section 1 or 3” substitute “and directions”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) This section applies to a direction under—(a) section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (deemed planning permission),(b) section 17 or 17A of this Act (deemed listed building or conservation area consent), or(c) section 12(2A) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (deemed hazardous substances consent),as it applies to an order under section 1 or 3.”(3) In section 12 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (reference of applications for listed building consent to Secretary of State), omit subsection (3A).(4) In section 94(4) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (reference to Welsh Ministers of application for listed building consent associated with Transport and Works Act application), after “application” in the second place it occurs insert “to the Secretary of State”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the proposed power to remove the need for various heritage-related consents for a Transport and Works Act project with a power to put in place deemed listed building consent or (in Wales) conservation area consent for such a project.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 49 is agreed, I am unable to call Amendment 50 for reasons of pre-emption.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment replacing Clause 41.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—“(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.””
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Amendments 52 and 57 aim to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to switch to an electric vehicle and install the necessary infrastructure so that they can charge from their home, thus benefiting from VAT-free electricity charging. Amendment 52 allows for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Amendment 57 then extends permitted developments related to electric vehicle charge points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres.
Up to 40% of UK households do not have access to off-street parking. They therefore rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. A recent survey by the Electric Vehicle Association England highlights that, generally speaking, drivers without off-street parking are more likely to rent, earn less and live in concentrated urban areas; they are less likely to switch to an electric vehicle and those who have are generally less confident in electric vehicle ownership and more concerned about the costs. This amendment would help to democratise access to electric vehicles and reduce inequalities.
As I highlighted in Committee, cross-pavement solutions have real potential to help to tackle this challenge, but the current costs of installation can be around £3,000 and it can take 12 to 15 months for a decision from a local authority. Only this month in Northern Ireland, residents can now apply for cross-pavement electric vehicle charging channels. Through just a simple online form, residents can apply for the channels that would allow residents with electric vehicles to reduce charging costs there from £25 at a typical charge point to just £3. We need to make it as simple and easy to access in the rest of the country too. These amendments seek to make the transition to electric fair and easy. I have been encouraged by discussions with the Minister about this issue since Committee and look forward to hearing whether any progress can be made to help people without driveways to transition to electric vehicles more easily and affordably.
While I am on my feet, on the other amendments in this group, Amendment 55 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has come late in the day. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister on this important area of accessibility and charge points. I shall not waste the time of the House on the new amendments that would add more bureaucracy in the transition to green vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 53 and 54 in this group, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, disdains to address—so that leaves it to me to explain what they would do. Amendment 53 would require local authorities to conduct and publish a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charge point works that may displace general use parking to ensure that the wider motoring public is not disproportionately affected by the transition to electric infrastructure. Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that residents and businesses can request a review where proposed EV installations reduce access to conventional parking.
My concern is that the Government do not appear to appreciate the practical and societal risks of their current approach. Across the country, residents, particularly in towns and suburbs, are finding that parking spaces they have relied on for years are being removed or repurposed for electric vehicle charging bays without consideration of local needs. Of course, the argument is that this is all in the service of the transition to electric vehicles, although that transition appears to be stalling, if we take note of the number of electric vehicles being sold and what the take-up is. But for many people—and there is a class element to this—especially those who cannot afford an electric vehicle, dependency on a petrol or diesel-driven vehicle for getting to work, fulfilling the requirements of daily life and making a living is absolutely essential, and provision has to continue for those. We are in danger of pushing out from parking access poor people, on low incomes, who desperately need a car to make space for the better-off family’s second Tesla for the nanny to use. That cannot be equitable, can it?
What is proposed here is an impact assessment—no prohibition—and the opportunity for people to ask for a review. As I say, the benefits flow directly in one direction. The Minister said in Committee that we must ensure that the regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. I agree, but I ask for whom it is enabling, and at what cost. The transition that we are aiming at has to be fair, balanced and practical, and these amendments would simply introduce a modest, reasonable safeguard to ensure that the wider motoring public is not unduly disadvantaged as infrastructure for electrical vehicles is rolled out.
Amendments 52 and 57—I am willing to address the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, even though she cannot be bothered to address mine—raise the same issue that I have highlighted. By allowing private charging points to extend into the public sphere, these measures would in effect reserve and privatise particular road space for the benefit of particular residents and exclude the general public from parking in those bays even when they were free. Perhaps some means could be found whereby the general public could park in them when they were free, but nobody has proposed what this mechanism is.
It is incumbent on the noble Baroness to address this question. In a world where there was limitless parking space, these issues would not arise, but her amendments aim specifically at those places where there is relatively high density. Places where properties do not have their own driveway or on-site parking space tend to be those with higher levels of density—those are the ones she wants to address—and often they are more mixed economically. As I say, that question of equity is important too.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a taxi proprietor and driver of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. The reason why it is wheelchair-accessible is that I introduced that feature into the manufacture of taxis when I ran that business. I also introduced bus ramps to make low-floor buses accessible, and for some years ran the powered-wheelchair finance business Motability. I was also an electric vehicle entrepreneur, making an electric delivery vehicle— a business I started in 2004. I also declare that my wife and I have an eldest son who is disabled with learning difficulties.
The reason for my Amendment 55 follows the statistic that, in this country, fewer than 3% of public electric vehicle charging points are considered safe and reliable for drivers with accessibility needs. Without the protective measures I am putting forward, drivers with disabilities will likely see no end to the struggle of charging their car safely and reliably. This is an essential activity; it should not be yet another barrier for disabled individuals to carry out their day-to-day lives.
This amendment is modest in scope but vital in purpose. It would surely give the Government the power, if needed in the future, to make compliance with existing accessibility standards obligatory. It is an enabling measure, not an immediate imposition. Many EV drivers rely on the public network to charge their car. We know that around 40% of UK households do not have a driveway, for instance, and therefore have no easy access to home charging. We also know that disability and poverty are strongly correlated, meaning that drivers with disabilities are even less likely to own a private driveway and a home charger. It is therefore deeply troubling that most of the public network is unable to meet even basic accessibility needs.
According to EVA England, nearly half of all drivers, with or without disabilities, have experienced problems using public charge points. They cite heavy cables, high kerbs, obstructed bays and payment terminals that are too high or awkwardly placed. For many disabled drivers, these are not small irritations but complete barriers to participation. In July, electric vehicles made up around 25% of new sales, but in the Motability scheme, which supports drivers with disabilities, they represented 12%—less than half. Why are disabled people not choosing electric vehicles? It is because they cannot recharge them. Indeed, a full quarter of Motability drivers say that they entirely avoid public chargers because of accessibility issues. That is not a future issue but a crisis of access now.
The Department for Transport took an important step in 2022 by publishing an accessibility standard, PAS 1899, designed to address these issues. However, as of today, hardly any public charge points meet that standard, largely because the parts and design requirements have yet to be fully adopted by industry. A revised version is being developed, with input from consumer groups and manufacturers. It is expected to offer a workable compromise between what industry can deliver and what disabled drivers need but, when it comes, it will again be entirely voluntary.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I am absolutely delighted that he has tabled it. As a disabled person, I have to say that the guidance on accessible charging is not worth very much, as it has not made an impact on my ability to move to an electric car. I totally agree about the barriers that the noble Lord mentioned of raised kerbs, gravel or, indeed, poorly lit charging stations, or even lack of accessible bays.
To use a charging station, I need to be able to open the door of my car to the widest possible point. My chair comes apart—the wheels come off, and the frame and the wheels sit on my front seat—and I do not want to damage any other cars while I am getting in and out. It does not take me much longer than a non-disabled person to do so, but when I tried, very hard, several times to move to an electric vehicle it proved impossible.
The first time I tried, I was close to signing the paperwork but had a look around my local area. There was no accessible charging station within at least 30 miles of my house, which was not particularly useful. The advice from the garage was that perhaps I should just take someone with me wherever I went, and they could get in and out of the car to charge it for me.
The problems go deeper than that. As we are seeing charging stations develop, they are taking over accessible bays. One time I was sat in a queue at a service station—admittedly, it was at a busy time—and looked at how much longer it would take me to charge my car, because I need a wider bay. It was a significant amount of time, compared to my place in the queue. What I am worried about is the impact this is going to have if we do not do something now for disabled people.
I recognise that there are probably changes coming to the Motability scheme. I do not have a Motability car, but I do receive personal independence payments. There are an increasing number of electric vehicles on Motability’s books, and Motability is removing cars that a lot of disabled people can drive. This is cutting down people’s choices and options. There is also a lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles that are electric and allow a tailgate lift, so if someone has an electric wheelchair, that policy is shutting down their options and making things really difficult.
I recently visited Newport, and I offer some praise to Newport Council. It has done an amazing job of providing not just accessible charging stations but lots of different options in its car parks. This is a real model that we should take forward. The council has looked at the guidance, recognised that it is not going to help disabled people, and gone above and beyond. But that is one council; sadly, there are gaps all over the rest of the country. Ultimately, I do not want disabled people to be blamed for not caring about the environment, as they were when plastic straws were banned. Disabled people experienced a massive backlash: they were told they were going to be murdering turtles and dolphins, but plastic straws were the only means by which many people could drink. We can already see that disabled people have been accused of not caring about the environment and not making the switch. Rather, they want to but are unable to do so.
With that in mind, I strongly support the amendment. We have to do something to make it possible for disabled people to switch to electric vehicles.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 53, 54 and 55 but express some concern about Amendment 52. My noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right to call for an impact assessment before local authorities go overboard with removing non-electric car spaces in an obsessive drive for electric vehicle charging points. There are 2.6 million plug-in cars in the UK, including hybrids and fully electric— 5% of the total. But there are 33 million petrol and diesel cars in the UK. AutoTrader issued a report in July this year, stating that the current sales trajectory of new electric cars would see just 45% market share by 2030, well below the 80% projected and mandated target set by the Government. Personally, I prefer to trust AutoTrader’s expert analysis rather than government wish-list projections.
What are the Government’s projections? They believe there could be between 8 million and 12 million hybrid vehicles and electric cars by 2030 if uptake aligns with their targets. By 2040, the number could reach 25 million according to the Local Government Association. Some projections, aligned with the UK’s net-zero goals, estimate up to 37.4 million electric vehicles by 2050 if we go flat out on net zero. So we might have 11 million hybrid cars if—I repeat, if—the uptake aligns with government targets. But we see that those targets are 100% out already, just as the Government’s heat pump projections are about 500% out. In the nicest possible way, it is all wishful thinking.
But the big danger here—and this is where my noble friends’ amendments are spot on—is the Local Government Association’s projection of 25 million electric cars by 2040. Where on earth does the LGA get this information from? What does it know about forecasting electric car uptake? The only ones who can do that are car manufacturers, dealers, others in the trade who have their finger on the pulse of buyer motivation, and those who understand battery replacement costs, Chinese cheap car penetration, trade-in values and so on. If local authorities take up the Local Government Association’s projection and take it seriously—as they are likely to do—we will see twice as many non-electric car parking spaces ripped out, and we will have electric car places instead, so that projection will be wrong.
I simply ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to 2020, when everyone thought that electric vehicles were the bee’s knees and would rapidly replace petrol and diesel cars. In 2019, the Department for Transport forecast that there would be 1.5 million electric cars by the end of 2020. In fact, at the end of 2020 there were approximately 431,000 ultra-low emission vehicles, and that includes battery-electric and fully electric. That is one-third of the Government’s projection. What would have happened if local authorities had had the money and resources to implement that flawed projection? Thank goodness they did not have the money to do it; otherwise, they would have removed thousands of conventional car parking spaces and installed three times more electric charging points than there were cars. That is why it is essential that local authorities follow the measure in my noble friend’s amendments.
We must have a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charging points that would replace general use parking, and businesses and residents must have the power to request a review when EV installations reduce conventional parking. We have seen local authorities ride roughshod over local residents, closing roads and imposing ridiculously low speed restrictions, but I have no doubt that many will ignore the needs of petrol car drivers in the fanatical pursuit of electric cars.
I also strongly support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s Amendment 55. I congratulate him on all the work he has done with London cabs over the years to make them accessible. I and thousands of other people in London would not be able to move anywhere around this city were it not for the ramps that he insisted be built into London cabs; the new, longer ramps are just superb. Most charging points that I have seen seem to be about one metre above the payment. Theoretically, they should be accessible for disabled motorists, but many charging points are not usable for motorists with wheelchair-adapted vehicles. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson on her excellent speech setting out many of the deficiencies she has faced.
In 2018, it was calculated that about 400,000 vehicles had been adapted or converted for wheelchair users, but that includes drivers and passengers. It is a relatively small number in comparison to the 30 million other vehicles on the road. However, if you are a wheelchair user, there first needs to be a dropped kerb. Imagine that you are a wheelchair user, a driver, in a car: there are only two ways to use it. You either get a ramp at the back to get out and in, or a little hoist to get out of the driver’s seat. The first decision you have to make if you see an electric charging point is whether to drive up in such a way that you are exiting on to the street and taking a risk there, or whether to turn the vehicle round so that the driver’s seat is next to the kerb. In the latter case, there needs to be a dropped kerb nearby so that you can get out of the vehicle and on to the pavement. I am not suggesting that every charging point must have a dropped kerb, but there needs to be one nearby. Then, the charging plug must not face the street or car, since the wheelchair user cannot get round to that side to use it. It is not rocket science. It is not expensive to make sure that all plug-in points either face the pavement or are at right-angles to it, or at least do not face the street.
While I have no solution for the scenario where the plug for the car is in the middle of the bonnet or the boot and the wheelchair user can plug in okay, but then cannot get on to the pavement to plug in at the other end, the latest statistics show that most plugs on cars are at the rear. Some 37% of electric vehicles in the UK are configured with the plug at the right rear; the left rear is the second most common location, found on 31% of vehicles. The left front is less common still, accounting for 18% of vehicles. The wheelchair user therefore has to get to the left rear, the right rear or the front to plug in, and then has to get on to the pavement to plug into the socket there. I therefore believe that my noble friend Lord Borwick is absolutely right. If the Government do not make this simple concession, I hope that he will push his amendment to the vote.
Finally, I flag my concern at the mention of cross-pavement charging points. Suffice it to say that, in my short journeys to the House of Lords in my trusty chariot, I battle daily with e-bikes and scooters dumped or parked anywhere on the pavement. Then one contends with temporary construction work, which necessitates cables and pipes crossing the pavement. To be fair, in nearly every case, the construction companies cover them up with temporary cable ramps or protectors but, in about 50% of the cases, they are so high, lumpy and protruding that I cannot get a wheelchair over and sometimes get grounded trying to cross them. However, these construction companies know the law and they try to safeguard pedestrians.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling Amendments 52 and 57, which are important. The rollout of public and domestic charge point infrastructure is vital to ensuring a smooth transition to zero-emission vehicles, particularly for those without access to off-street parking.
Amendment 57 seeks to simplify the installation of cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights. The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords on this matter and further support the aim that the noble Baroness intends with this amendment. As such, we will launch a consultation on introducing permitted development in the coming months. It is important that a consultation is undertaken to consider the impacts of such a permitted development right and to develop appropriate mitigations should the proposal be taken forward. Subject to the outcome of the consultations, we will make changes quickly under secondary legislation through the Town and Country Planning Act to simplify cross-pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights.
The second amendment proposes to treat cross-pavement charging solutions as public charge points under Clause 47, allowing installation without a Section 50 street works licence. Section 50 licences provide local authorities with the statutory means to supervise and regulate third-party works on public highways, ensuring that standards of safety, quality and responsibility are upheld. This oversight is especially important in developing areas such as cross-pavement charging to avoid some of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, just outlined.
While the public charge point market is now relatively mature, with over 86,000 installations in the UK, the cross- pavement solution space remains nascent with just a few hundred installations to date. Given this disparity, it is appropriate that Section 50 licences continue to be used for cross-pavement installations. As my department intends to consult on expanded permitted development rights, it would also not be appropriate to remove the need for Section 50 licences at this time, as that would remove those key checks and balances for local authorities.
However, a delivery model that is already available to local authorities is to use their own highways teams. In doing so, they can already access street works permits to directly install cross-pavement solutions and avoid the need for a Section 50 licence. This approach gives local authorities power to make delivery decisions at a local level, while maintaining oversight and the choice of delivery model. Having listened to the noble Baroness’s concerns, my department will write to local authorities in England to highlight that this is an important option that should be considered.
As well as this, the Government are working to improve consistency and accelerate rollout through dedicated funding, clear guidance and sharing best practice. This includes £25 million in grant funding for cross-pavement channels in England, new and additional guidance and the aforementioned consultation on expanding permitted development rights. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I turn to Amendments 53 and 54 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The purpose of Clause 47 is to support the rollout of essential EV charging infrastructure across England. This clause is an essential measure for simplifying the application and approval measures for public EV charging points in response to increasing demand for charging infrastructure. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord undermines this and adds additional burdens on local authorities, ultimately slowing down rollout.
Only in certain cases does a local authority choose to dedicate a parking bay for EV charging. In such situations, the current framework—such as the use of traffic regulation orders—already enables highway authorities to manage parking on public roads efficiently. Where an EV charging bay is needed, a traffic regulation order can be implemented to allocate the space. The procedure for putting a traffic regulation order in place includes public consultation and the formal announcement of the authority’s intentions. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic regulation order may be used. Here, too, authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. My department also provides statutory guidance: the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street and Road Works, which promotes early engagement and consultation among all relevant parties before works.
It is vital that our regulatory framework supports progress rather than creating unnecessary obstacles. Imposing an additional requirement for impact assessments at this point would place an excessive strain on highway authorities—a challenge that will only intensify as applications for charge point installations continue to increase. Expecting authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit application to install a public charge point would not only introduce additional costs and administrative pressure but hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in the existing statutory guidance, which sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 54 on enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where electric vehicle installations reduce access to conventional parking. This proposed amendment would require highway authorities to conduct formal reviews of electric vehicle charge point installations at the request of any resident or business, regardless of the scale of concern, within 30 days. This would, again, place unnecessary burdens and costs on authorities, diverting resources away from essential delivery work and risking delays in our drive towards net zero. At a time when we must accelerate electric vehicle deployment, we cannot afford added obstacles. Furthermore, allowing retrospective reviews at the request of individuals risks reopening settled decisions.
The statutory guidance for highway authorities operating permit schemes provides clear powers to assess the impact of street works and to impose conditions aimed at mitigating disruption, including the loss of parking. Authorities are expected to exercise these powers, ensuring that permit conditions are proportionate and aligned with the broader objectives of network management. This amendment would add complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It would risk slowing the pace of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners.
I note the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on the future of electric vehicles. The noble Lord is welcome to his views, but the Government do not agree with him. In any event, we need to make provision for electric vehicles that are already on the roads today. The Government’s Bill seeks to do that. Returning to Amendments 53 and 54, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press them.
Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, relates to accessible charging. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—indeed, all in your Lordships’ House—that this Government are very mindful of the difficulties faced by drivers with disabilities. The noble Baroness graphically described why we need to take action. Given that there will be an estimated 2.7 million disabled drivers or passengers on the roads by 2035, making public charge points accessible is not just about being fair and inclusive; it is vital.
As a result, the Government are supporting the adoption of accessible electric vehicles—including wheelchair-accessible models—and the infrastructure that supports them by encouraging their production and uptake through regulatory and policy incentives. My department and the Motability Foundation previously co-sponsored the British Standards Institution’s creation of the first global set of standards for accessible charge points—Public Accessibility Standard 1899:2022 —to provide a specification for designing and installing accessible public EV charge points.
However, we acknowledge that the adoption of these standards has not met expectations to date. Given the importance of ensuring an accessible charging network, my department and the Motability Foundation commissioned the British Standards Institution to review the adoption of the standards and any changes needed to accelerate their uptake and to improve accessibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, this review has involved a range of stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, consumer bodies, industry, the devolved Governments and others. It has identified challenges with the current standards and will be published shortly.
The review of this standard demonstrated a clear commitment from across the sector to ensure that charging is accessible for all drivers and has recommended changes and revisions to address these challenges. In addition, there are, of course, certain requirements that businesses, including those providing public charging, must follow under the Equality Act. Although the Act sets out these general duties, specific standards, such as PAS 1899:2022, help to ensure charge points are accessible in practice. I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that Newport City Council has done well in this respect; of course, we want all other local authorities and private providers to do the same.
The priority at this stage must therefore be to work with stakeholders across the sector to address the findings of the recent review. We believe that there is clear support for this plan from interested parties and the groups that contributed. Following this, we will monitor the adoption by industry and the impact on accessibility carefully to evaluate whether even further measures may be needed. In the Government’s view, it would therefore be premature to seek legislative measures to mandate the requirements at this stage.
I recognise that these provisions are fundamentally enabling powers, and I am grateful to have been able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, yesterday afternoon, since he tabled his amendment. Although I cannot currently accept his amendment, and therefore ask him not to press it, the Government will continue to consider this issue. I can assure him that all the groups that I have mentioned will continue to play a vital role in accessibility and taking forward the findings of the review. I will continue to work with him and the noble Baroness on this matter to see what we can do to speed up the process.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me a number of times, including during recess, to discuss the amendments that I have tabled. Finding ways to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to move to electric vehicles is so important for our green transition. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a consultation on permitted developments, followed by secondary legislation as soon as possible, and to write to all local authorities to effectively help speed up works to help those seeking cross-pavement solutions. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Borwick
“(10) The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 is amended as set out in subsections (11) and (12).(11) In section 10 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection)—(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points;”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1)(ba) may, for example, require the operator of a public charging or refuelling point to ensure that the point complies with minimum specifications for placement of a charge point display, bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable for the purpose of ensuring accessibility for disabled people.”.(12) In section 14 (transmission of data relating to charge points), in subsection (2) after “energy consumption” insert “, accessibility”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide extra powers to the Department to enable them to bring forth regulations to enable disabled people to more easily use public charging points. Such regulations may encourage public charging points to be designed with disabled drivers in mind who may be more willing purchase an electric vehicle if they are able to access and use the charging points.
“Deregulation of low hazard reservoirsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the current regulatory regime for low hazard reservoirs, and set out proposals for the deregulation of such reservoirs to facilitate their construction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to encourage the consideration of measures to facilitate the construction of small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given that the debate was two days ago, I will briefly remind the House why I am pressing this to a vote. The Minister explained clearly that there will be a review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which currently prohibits or sets very strict criteria on the construction of small reservoirs. Given the last two summers we have had, and the difficulty farmers have in accessing water at short notice during the summer months, it is extremely important that this review is brought forward and takes place as soon as possible to make sure that farmers have a regular supply of water to ensure that their stock is fed and their crops are watered. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson
National Lane Rental Scheme: establishment(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Lane Rental Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Scheme must ensure that—(a) local authorities are able to grant lane rental permission to utility companies as standard,(b) the Secretary of State is only involved in the granting of lane rental when utility companies appeal to the Secretary of State about the local authority’s actions under paragraph (a), and(c) any public highway may be subject to lane rental provisions, irrespective of size or level of sensitivity.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) consolidate existing regulations which provide for local authorities to grant permission for lane rental to utility companies for works, and(b) ensure that any orders made under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which may contradict the provisions of the Scheme are repealed.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument vary provisions in the Scheme.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) Any revenues raised through the National Lane Rental Scheme must be ring-fenced by local authorities and used exclusively for—(a) repair and maintenance of highways, including the remediation of potholes, and(b) measures to minimise future disruption from utility works.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a national scheme for Lane Rental during road works with the intention of developing a simpler, less bureaucratic, and more consistent system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response when I raised this in Committee and his subsequent communication. I am sure he recognises the problem that this amendment seeks to address, but I am afraid that limited tinkering does not solve the problem; we need to do something more meaningful.
As I said in Committee, we are plagued with constant disruption to our roads from roadworks. In the majority of cases, these relate to utilities works. It is a huge frustration to all drivers, often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also affects householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses suffer, as they lose business when people can no longer come to their pub, shop or whatever because of the excessive journey times. When these delays are on major roads, small country roads are often impacted by excessive traffic as people seek alternative routes.
Drivers are doubly frustrated when we see no work being done by these roadworks. Sometimes that is for a good reason but, often, it is for the convenience of the contractor. Last time, I gave the example of traffic lights being put out on a Friday for work starting on the subsequent Monday. The work is completed on the Thursday, yet the traffic lights are not removed until the subsequent Monday, so we have traffic lights and a closure for 10 days when there is only three or four days’ work. There is also the example of work being done during the day but nothing being done overnight, with the opportunity to move these traffic lights to one side. We recognise that utility work is essential, but it really should be done in a way that minimises disruption and keeps road closures and traffic lights to the absolute minimum.
Councils and the Government have sought to address this issue through measures such as permitting regimes. Many councils do this in a proactive manner, enforcing roadworks being kept to the permitted time, but that does not stop utility companies seeking a two-week gap when they might be able to get away with a five-day or six-day closure. As we discussed last time, there is a lane rental scheme under the 2012 lane rental regulations. As my noble friend Lord Moylan can attest from his time in London, the scheme works well for Transport for London. However, TfL is an exception, as the majority of its significant roads can be covered by the criterion of “highly sensitive roads” and it has the resources to deal with the bureaucracy involved, which includes applying to the Secretary of State for a statutory instrument. Outside London, the scheme can include a maximum of only 10% or 20% of the road network. As such, only four county councils have applied. It does not work in rural areas in particular.
There is a better way. There should be a national scheme, with appropriate protections and so on, that enables a wider range of highways to be included so that councils can simply opt in without the need to apply for a statutory instrument. This amendment seeks to reduce not only the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks but the bureaucracy involved in getting a lane rental scheme. Can the Minister not tinker with the existing scheme but, as the Chancellor has promised, sweep away unnecessary red tape to enable growth by enabling local highways authorities to keep our roads open and our traffic flowing, for the benefit of motorists, residents, the economy and local businesses? I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue: the huge frustrations around roadworks, in particular utility works. As mentioned, lane rental schemes exist in places such as London, and other highway authorities are also setting them up in England. For our Benches, though, this is an issue of localism. Although the Government can always share best practice, we think that it is for local and regional areas to develop schemes that suit their locality and their needs. We do not see the need for this amendment at this point, but we await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. As I said when we discussed this matter in Committee, it seems perfectly obvious that the powers of Transport for London in relation to lane rental should be available to highways authorities in the rest of the country. There is no objection to their operation in London. They work reasonably well; nothing works perfectly, of course, and there will always be roads that are blocked. Speaking from my own experience, I think there have been continuous highways works on Knightsbridge, including the tunnel, for the whole of the past 12 months, including at the moment. None the less, I am sure they would be even worse if we did not have a lane rental scheme in London. It should be available to the rest of the country. My noble friend Lord Jamieson is speaking common sense; I hope the Minister will agree with him and accept the amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving this amendment on a new national lane rental scheme. As the noble Lord says, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this issue, for which I also thank him. This Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks.
Lane rental is a valuable tool that enables highway authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. These charges incentivise quicker completion, off-peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes, not only that in London with Transport for London—a scheme I happened to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the commissioner at Transport for London—but those in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and other applications that are in train, show that lane rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.
However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities do not experience the levels of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. We remain committed to empowering local authorities but we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The Government recognise the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed—subject to consultation—to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities. We have consulted on this proposal and will publish the results and next steps as soon as we can.
In relation to proposed revenue ring-fencing, from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus lane rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes, and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds. For the reasons outlined, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response, because I think we should have a national scheme that can be opted into—and so would still be very much a local scheme—but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Water infrastructure project licencesOmit sub-paragraph (a) of regulation 4(3) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the “size and complexity” test for the awarding of a licence for a water infrastructure project, meaning that projects would be considered on value for money alone.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment was debated in Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who did a marvellous job of it, because I was away representing Parliament in the US. However, I have decided to retable it as I am conscious of the timing of the contributions last time. Only a couple of days beforehand, the Government, or rather Sir John Cunliffe, had published the review. In the response, the Minister referred to the March 2025 report by the Government regarding regulators and felt that it was too soon to be considering this issue. I am also conscious that, if I were to press this amendment, I would have gone further and amended the Water Industry Act 1991, the parent act of these regulations.
Why does this matter? We have just seen a Division on smaller reservoirs, but I am conscious that, particularly with the current financial environment regarding the water industry—which, by the way, will be putting a record amount of capital into fixing things such as sewers over the next five to 10 years, as well as the other work being done—there are still significant needs for reservoirs. We should recognise, as will be said, that a reservoir has not been built in the last 30 years. I remind your Lordships that, in 2015, the expansion of the Abberton Reservoir in Essex was completed, which increased its capacity by about 58%. The water industry has got far more efficient in its use of water and, while there are still leaks, they have also significantly reduced. Nevertheless, the pressure on water resources in this country is acute.
The reason that I seek to encourage the Government to look at this is, frankly, in recognition of how successful the Thames Tideway Tunnel project was—indeed, is. Bearing in mind the amendment passed by the Government on Monday, this amendment would open up opportunities to reduce the cost of consumers’ bills in relation to these significant reservoir projects, and indeed other projects.
That is why I continue to encourage the Government to look back at the 1991 Act and these regulations. A lot of what is happening in this Bill is reportedly being done to try and say to the OBR this is a way of increasing investment. Meanwhile, Part 3 is being used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is why looking at some more straightforward aspects of deregulation could go a long way to resolving some of the infrastructure issues that this country faces.
I should be interested to hear from the Minister where the Government’s thinking has moved on this, if at all, but it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.
Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.
I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.
Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.
It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.
For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.
Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.
Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the White Paper. I hope, even if it does not come up in the White Paper, that there will be a water Bill coming at some point in the next year or so. If I have not persuaded the Government today, I hope that we will return to this in due course. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations is proportionate to the nature and size of the development it applies to.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased when this amendment was debated in Committee, as there was a very small but warm consensus that it seemed fair and reasonable. We are well aware that SMEs face many challenges, but we believe that this is a small but significant signal to them that we understand their concerns.
The problem could not be clearer: the planning system is, by its very nature, stacked against the little players—small and medium-sized housebuilders, those local and skilled firms that know their communities best. They are operating in a system designed for the big players. They already face headwinds from finance, land supply and market exposure, yet our own planning system makes these headwinds stronger. Planning fees are one of the clearest examples of how policy, unintentionally, financially disadvantages smaller builders that are already struggling to survive. Small builders now deliver only 10% of new homes in the UK, which is down from almost 50% in their 1960s and 1970s heyday. The number of SME housebuilders has fallen from more than 12,000 in the 1980s to around 2,500 today.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already provides a clear framework and that local authorities will have the flexibility to vary fees through consultation and benchmarking. This is precisely the framework that has created the problem. Benchmarking, consultation and cost recovery sound absolutely reasonable in theory, but in practice they are the very mechanisms that have produced the current imbalance. SMEs already operate under a national system built on these principles, and it has led directly to them paying far more per home than large developers. This is an evidenced fact. Simply devolving this flawed model to local authorities will not suddenly make it fair.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I find that there is much to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House and, indeed, the Government. I am also very taken by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who will explain it momentarily. I have tabled Amendment 60 on Report to extract a commitment from the Minister and the Government that fees will include the cost of enforcement measures.
In Clause 48, the Government recognise that the local planning authority in England may set the level of a fee or a charge. Indeed, Clause 49 goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which I think is going much further than my modest little Amendment 60. I am deeply concerned about the issues raised by insurance companies such as, in this case, Aviva: that the Government seem to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods of their commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament.
We will come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and, indeed, possibly not building on the most functional flood plains, but at the moment the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. We have to accept that these measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs and measures to make homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it is generally felt that it would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to planning fees. I do not think it would be disproportionately high, as the Minister responded when summing up on the amendment in Committee; that is why I have sought to raise this.
I am sure that the Minister, the department and the Government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable than has been the case in the past. Life is about choices. If the Government are going to build on functional flood plains, we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood-proofed and resilient. These measures cost money.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensuring that those measures are adequately and properly installed will be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe that the fee will be disproportionate. Therefore, I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will see that this is only a potentially modest increase. It is something that she, her department and her Government are asking householders to do, and I believe that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee. That is the proposal that I put to the House this afternoon.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.
Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.
If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.
I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.
My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to
“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.
I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:
“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.
We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.
New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.
Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.
Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. I turn first to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which we had the pleasure of touching on briefly at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of the planning application. However, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary and will explain my reasons.
The principle of proportionality already exists in the planning fees regime; in view of the noble Baroness’s comments, I give an example of why I say this. Planning application fees for fewer than 10 new houses are currently £588 per dwelling; for between 10 and 50 dwellings, fees are £635 per dwelling; and, for more than 50 houses, there is a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional house, up to a maximum fee of £411,885. The fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. This Bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development.
As mentioned in previous debates, the Government plan to introduce a local variation model—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was not confident of this, but talking to the sector about how we do this will be important—under which a nationally set default fee developed through benchmarking and public consultation will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case with planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.
To ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the Bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes. Significantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate; this is an important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is concerned about SMEs. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I had a meeting last week with the APPG for SME House Builders, which raised a number of issues with me. We are all concerned about ensuring that we make things as efficient as possible for SMEs—as well as for those in the charity sector, such as Centrepoint, which the noble Baroness kindly brought to a meeting with me last week—in terms of providing much-needed homes. I assure the noble Baroness that we recognise that SME housebuilders are an indispensable part of the sector. That is why the Government have brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including: an extension of £700 million to the home building fund to provide loans and financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes; £2 billion of ENABLE Build guarantees; and a commitment to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I am certain that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 60. Well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need. They also safeguard communities from unauthorised or harmful development by ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that is necessary. We understand the intention behind this amendment—supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity—but, because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider that it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.
Additionally, we consider that allowing local planning authorities to set planning fees that included enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants; indeed, it may have an impact on the very SME builders whom the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, discussed. We are concerned that this may discourage development at a time when we are very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building. More widely, the Government have committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will not press her amendment.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful if I elaborated a little more to answer his questions.
We propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee that a developer must pay when submitting an application. We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input. As we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application-specific costs, developers may sometimes pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application. However, we will be required to set the surcharge so that it does not exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees in aggregate. If it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, the surcharge must be set so that its income does not exceed that amount. I hope that is helpful.
We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as for NSIPs, where there are relatively few projects. Engagement occurs over a longer period and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. It is important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different: it occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.
It is also an issue of high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals on top of this. Instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300-plus local planning authorities, up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers. It would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative infrastructure required and place a substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes. Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly and bureaucratic, create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. Just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies.
The alternative that we are putting forward in the Bill is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means that, in some cases, as I have said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it would cost the statutory consultee, and in some cases the developer will pay less. However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront, and there will be no unexpected costs. That way we will not be creating more hoops for developers to jump through to get their application considered; they will pay a fee when they submit their application and that is it. Before regulations are introduced, we will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set and the types of planning application it should apply to.
Lastly, we recognise the risk that charges could be set at inappropriately high levels and that is why our proposed powers make it clear that the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant cost of the persons, such as the statutory consultees, that the surcharge is intended to cover. That ensures that we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment but, given the reasons and explanations I have set out, I hope he feels able not to move it.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite pertinent.
I was seeking to make proportionality a clear legal duty rather than a well-intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it is about the proof of the pudding and “watch this space”. I hope that we will keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require that prescribed training promotes a science-based approach with regard to—(a) climate change and biodiversity; and,(b) ecological surveying including botanical and mycological surveying.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees and planning officers must include climate and biodiversity and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 62 in the names of my noble friend Lady Boycott—who sends her apologies; she has been unavoidably detained—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
This amendment, which is very similar to one tabled in Committee, would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees must include climate and biodiversity, and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance. It is welcome that the Government recognise how crucial expertise on biodiversity issues is for planning committee members.
This amendment has been revised since Committee to address concerns raised by the Government who did not wish to prescribe a list of the training materials that would need to be included. Instead, Amendment 62 would simply require that the training introduced by the Bill would be delivered such that it promotes a science-based and evidence-led approach on matters related to climate change, biodiversity and botanical, mycological surveying. In so doing, the amendment recognises the importance of retaining flexibility and accommodating the fact that there can be developments in new data that will inform training over time.
The Home Builders Federation, in its 2025 Government Progress Report published in August, points to a number of blockers for new housing developments, such as insufficient resourcing of local planning authorities and support for home ownership. It says:
“However, more broadly, as BNG has bedded in, issues with its implementation have emerged, as outlined in a recent BNG HBF report. Unsurprisingly, one key issue is that local authorities do not have sufficient capacity to process BNG applications, with a shortage of public sector ecologists causing increasing delays home builders face before construction can begin”.
Accepting this moderate amendment would help to unpick this issue, as it would ensure that planning members have the skills and confidence to interpret and apply guidance such as BNG. and have a better understanding of the underlying evidence around climate change and the environment and how their decisions impact on local authorities’ ability to contribute to climate and nature targets.
The problem is that planning committees, and indeed the people supporting them, are stretched. I am afraid that, if this is not a statutory requirement, the status quo will continue. People will be making decisions about applications without any scientific understanding of, arguably, two of the biggest threats facing us, at least on a domestic basis.
This is not to attack the planning committees at all, but a 2022 survey prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists found that only 5% of respondents said that their current ecological resource, including in-house and external sources, was adequate to scrutinise all applications that might affect biodiversity. We do not see how that matches up with what the Minister said in Committee. She said that
“it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 970.]
However, it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill.
If trained, the planning committee can take informed decisions about the ecological benefits and maintenance requirements of ecological enhancements. This would reduce the risk of enforcement actions against developers in the future and provide people with high-quality, nature-rich spaces in which to live and work.
On the climate side, the Minister did not really respond to that in Committee, so I would like to know what is being done to further this. Giving a duty for a science-based approach on these issues would be future-proof, retain the necessary flexibility and not be overly prescriptive while ensuring that anything built is fit for the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who so ably introduced Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I do not need to say very much, but I will just add a couple of extra perspectives. This amendment would ensure that there is training for members of planning committees and planning officers on climate and biodiversity and an enhanced ecological literacy. I particularly applaud the appearance of mycological surveying here as someone who is very passionate about soil science, but I will not go further down that road at this moment, given the hour. What I will say is that this ties very well with our extensive discussion in Committee on the plans and ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about overall strengthening of the planning process—the idea of a chief planning officer and of strengthening planning committees—namely, that we need to strengthen public and political trust.
I declare here my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, noted the lack of resources that local authorities have. If something is not statutory, it is very likely that it will not get done—that is all that local councils have the money to do. We have a huge problem with lack of trust in politics, lack of faith in politics, concern about the planning system and concern that local voices and concerns are not being heard in the system. This is a way of both strengthening the system itself in technical and scientific terms and helping to strengthen trust in the system, which is so crucial in terms of restoring trust in our overall political system and local government system.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is planning, but I think that this is something on which we should think about testing the opinion of the House. I look forward to hearing the Minister perhaps tell us that the Government will follow along these lines, in which case a vote would not be necessary. It is really important that we put these principles in the Bill and make them statutory. Then we can ensure that they will get done; otherwise, it is very likely that they will not.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, nobody, I believe, would want to disagree with members of planning committees, those decision-makers at all levels, being trained. Noble Lords will remember that I tabled an amendment in Committee on Ministers and the Secretary of State having the equivalent training as that expected of councillors. I have not pressed that on Report.
However, I am concerned because, if we are going to start enumerating all the essential skills that the committee must take into account when weighing all the evidence in the balance, and if we are going to cherry pick climate, quadrats and field trips on mycorrhizal fungi and everything else, how will they rank against the impact on residents, business, the economy and the socioeconomic impacts of development? They are all sort of subjective, but then we get the objective ones: space standards, design, viability and so on. It would be invidious to single out just climate change and mycorrhizal fungi in the Bill. Regulations will come forward and we will have an opportunity to influence those, potentially, at a later date in the Moses Room when we can have this debate all over again.
I have sat on a planning committee, and I have appointed a planning committee. We take our obligations and our own authority for training very seriously and it is right that we do. It costs tens of thousands of pounds—hundreds of thousands in some cases, as we heard in the previous debate—to bring a planning application forward. Members of the planning committee should have the widest experience and training.
That training should be not necessarily in the issues themselves but in the ability to work out, critically, whether what they are being told by officials and quangos is valid scientifically. There are different types of science.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I was not making a suggestion about whether climate science is there. There are different levels of science in all manner of different disciplines in planning. Some of it is contested and others are not so. That is why we have planning officials, quangos and scientists. I cannot support this amendment, and I rise because the noble Baroness indicated that she may want to press it to a vote, so I place my objection on the record.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, contrary to my noble friend, I support Amendment 62—in part. The “in part” is because I do not want climate change to freeze out biodiversity, which is ultimately far more important for local authorities, which have specific biodiversity duties but no legal climate change responsibilities. The other reason that it is in part is that, while some of the training is meritorious, it need not be mandatory.
I was privileged to serve on the board of Natural England for almost seven years and on the extraordinary Joint Nature Conservation Committee—the official adviser to the four Governments of the United Kingdom on all matters of biodiversity, both in the UK and internationally. All the top experts in both organisations said that, if we could go back to the drawing board, there would not be two UN conventions—one on climate change and one on biodiversity—but just one. Our chairman, Tony Juniper, consistently said that they were two sides of the same coin, and I entirely agree with him, even if agreeing with Tony may antagonise some of my noble friends around me. The point is that, if we saved our peat bogs, planted enough of the right trees in the right place and stopped ripping the ocean floor apart, we would save so much carbon that we would not need to put our industries out of business, inflict heat pumps on households and penalise anything that produces carbon.
The consequences of those two conventions are that all NGOs and Governments have focused heavily on climate change and that biodiversity gets a poor look-in, and that is a tragedy. With a tremendous amount of political will and with horrendous expenditure that will impact every person, it is possible to reverse climate change eventually. However, we are losing species in the world at a phenomenal rate and, when a species is gone, it is lost for ever. Forget these gimmicks of restoring mammoths, since most of the species being lost are the unsexy flora and fauna that may be vital to future human existence.
I come to the point of council training. The UK has lost dozens of species; even hedgehogs are critically endangered. Also endangered are water voles, turtle doves and farmland birds. Local authorities need to be aware of that, and training for councillors on biodiversity is quite important, in my opinion.
I cannot find any legal duty on councillors to take climate change into account when making decisions. I researched this in case my memory was failing, and the only law on climate change is the Climate Change Act 2008, which was amended in 2019 to add the net-zero requirement. All the requirements of the Act relate to action by central government not local authorities.
I understand that local councillors need to be trained in the legal matters to be taken into consideration when determining a planning application—nothing more, nothing less. My concern is that more than 300 councils have declared a so-called climate emergency and 85% of them have adopted climate action plans, which are all inconsistent with each other. Many of these plans are showboating; some are meritorious, such as Wirral Council’s tree-planting policy, but it is not a legal requirement. Councillors should receive training in strictly only those matters that are legal requirements to be taken into account in planning applications, not in things like Waltham Forest’s policy to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies.
We have a completely different scenario with biodiversity, since we have lots of legislation on biodiversity that needs to be taken into account in deciding planning applications. I will not go into it all, but the key elements for councillors are contained in my noble friend Lord Gove’s marvellous Environment Act 2021. It is a watershed Act.
The sections that I will briefly mention now will deliver nature recovery for the first time, provided that the Government do not cut the funding. The key item is local nature recovery strategies, which councils, NGOs, Defra and Natural England consider to be the main vehicle to bring about nature recovery. All 48 designated areas have now completed their LNRS plans, I think, but only five have been published so far. I believe that the rest are due to be finished by the end of this year. The success of the strategies will depend on farmers and landowners doing their bit through ELMS, and it is a tragedy that the Government are cutting ELMS funding.
I suggest that training for local councillors needs to focus on the 2021 Act. The main sections are as follows: Sections 98 to 101 on biodiversity net gain; Sections 102 and 103 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; Sections 104 to 108 on local nature recovery strategies; Section 109 on species conservation strategies; Section 110 on protected site strategies; Section 111 on wildlife conservation licences; Sections 112 and 113 on habitats regulations amendments, which might possibly be for councillors; and Sections 117 to 139 on conservation covenants, which they might come across. There may be other things, but I suggest to the House that these key issues are what local councillors should be informed of and trained on.
I am intrigued by proposed new subsection (b) in the noble Baroness’s amendment, whereby councillors would be trained in “ecological surveying”. The only training that they need is to be able to read and understand the technical ecological reports they might receive, not to do the surveying.
I turn to the mycological bit. As far as mushrooms are concerned, I initially assumed that this was one of those in-jokes we used to have in government that councillors and Ministers were treated like mushrooms by their civil servants—that is, kept in the dark and fed a lot of bull stuff. Of course, I can understand the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, being interested in mushrooms. If she invites me to dinner, I hope she will not serve me mushrooms, being an Australian.
Seriously, however, I am concerned about the huge increase in the last 12 months of trendy Tik-Tokers deciding that foraging is the latest fad and stripping woodlands of far too many mushrooms. That has happened in just the last 12 months. Many years ago, when I was food Minister, I became friends with the wonderful chef, Antonio Carluccio, and had various meetings with him. He was a mushroom afficionado. After a four-course lunch consisting of a mushroom starter, a mushroom amuse-bouche, a mushroom main course and a delicious mushroom pudding, he presented me with an official Italian mushroom picker’s knife. Italy takes fungi seriously. It had a little curved blade; a centimetre scale, so that no ceps were cut under 4 centimetres and others at no less than 2 centimetres; and a little brush at the end to clean off the dirt. Antonio drummed it into me that mushrooms should never be washed—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I ask the noble Lord to stick to the amendment? Italian mushrooms might be a very important issue, but as far as this amendment is concerned, it is very discursive.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I take the Whip’s comment with a slight pinch of salt—albeit not on my mushrooms. The amendment refers to mushrooms, and I am citing an example of mushrooms because it is relevant to the debate. If we were working normal hours, my remarks would probably be shorter, in view of the timescale. Since the Government have deliberately added an extra three hours to this debate, my remarks, which are still only seven minutes’ long, are quite relevant and apposite.
I conclude by saying that there is some merit in what the noble Baroness has suggested in these amendments, particularly on the biodiversity training, but we should leave aside the rest of it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to point out, since he addressed me directly, that mushrooms are a tiny fraction of the mycological ecosphere and that what we are talking about here are the fungi that are essential for plants to be able to attract nutrients. I would be very happy to discuss all this with him later.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I hope that in two minutes we will adjourn. Right from the outset of the debate on this Bill, the Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of mandatory training for councillors who serve on planning committees, and I am pleased that this amendment does not challenge that principle, which is a good one.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Although I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi-judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors; we would have supported training for officials and, potentially, for Government Ministers, had my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment arisen, but I will let that pass for now.
Such training must focus on the statutory duties of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware of their roles; of the legal and regulatory environment; and of the procedures on which they need to make judgment. They need to make decisions based on the legal and regulatory aspects that pertain to the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so on are already embedded in national planning policy. There is guidance on them; that guidance will, and should, be part of the training process.
By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties—as well as ensuring that consideration of the relevant legislation, planning guidance and local policies occurs in determining an application—the proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and, potentially, undermining the quasi-judicial role of a planning committee. I would have been more sympathetic to proposals around ensuring both that the training is effective and that it covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislation—including those highlighted today. However, as I said, having training that is more generic risks confusion. Therefore, I cannot support these proposals.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing broad support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities.
I turn to Amendment 62, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As I have set out previously, I am very sympathetic to the issues that were raised by noble Lords in Committee. I reiterate what I said at the time: it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not include, for example, content on biodiversity net gain. The Government maintain, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. On that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for once; that is not always the case.
Let me respond to the point about the status quo continuing. This Bill brings mandatory training into force for the first time, so it does move us on from the status quo. Including specific details in the Bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, gave some examples of what may or may not be in there—which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, thus requiring valuable time in Parliament.
I will respond briefly to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on what is being done. The Government are working to bring forward the training package; we consulted on our general approach earlier this year. We will ensure that the training is comprehensive and based on both best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have learned a lot during the past 15 minutes, some of which I have immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed the exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—his stream-of-consciousness, mushroom, anti-Australian cuisine comment —which will live with me for a long time.
I know that my noble friend Lady Boycott did not want to press this amendment. I am optimistic, thanks to what the Minister said about mandatory training being comprehensively in the guidance, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Drink-Drive Limit
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to lower the drink drive limit.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill)
My Lords, this Government take road safety seriously. We are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. We are considering a range of policies under the new road safety strategy, the first for 10 years. This includes the case for changing motoring offences such as drink- driving. I assure the House that, as part of this, we are deeply considering concerns raised by campaigners and bereaved families whom my ministerial colleagues have met.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, in particular that the Government are considering changing offences such as drink-driving, reflecting concerns raised by bereaved families, such as mine. I lost two family members this way.
A fifth of road deaths—about 250 people a year—are because of drink-driving. That is equivalent to a Boeing 787 crashing every year; if one of those crashed every year, we would take it seriously. Even at 50 milligrams a person is severely impaired, which is why the police and the PCCs—everyone—have called for a reduction to 50 milligrams, which is supported by three-quarters of the public. Can the Minister urge colleagues to take seriously the possibility of saving the equivalent of a plane crash every year on our roads by reducing that level?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend has my deep condolences for her family’s loss; I am sure that is echoed by your Lordships’ House. The Government’s view is that driving under the influence of drink is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and to ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement, alongside our highly respected and effective THINK! campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink-driving, reminding people of the serious consequences it has on themselves and others. We will have more to say.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the Scottish Government did exactly what the noble Baroness proposes, then commissioned research that showed the change made absolutely no difference whatever to the accident rate in Scotland?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Earl is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I cannot confirm his analysis of the results. Of course, in determining a new road safety strategy, the Government will not only take evidence but look at what has happened as a consequence of different levels. Whatever he thinks the effect is—and it is a consequence of both penalties and enforcement—the Government will think carefully and act decisively.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, drug-driving, as well as drink-driving, is deadly. What work are the Government carrying out to look at international developments in roadside detection devices to collect evidence on wider drug misuse while driving, such as the inhalation of nitrous oxide?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a strong point. Drug-driving is as lethal as drink-driving. She will know that there has been some recent publicity about that particular method of drug-driving in London. I am confident that the police and enforcement authorities are working their way through that particular episode. The Government are looking carefully at all the methods of enforcement for driving under the influence of a variety of different drugs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that young drivers in particular with any alcohol in their bloodstream at all are at greater risk of other dangerous behaviours, such as not using seatbelts and speeding, and that in their accidents it is very often young people or children who are killed or receive life-changing injuries? Therefore, we should have a message that if you are drinking, you do not have the car keys.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. The primary audience of THINK!, the flagship road safety campaign, is young men aged 17 to 24. The campaign targets priority issues, such as drink-driving and speeding, as well as communicating key policy interventions. There is, of course, a form of restricting novice drivers through the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. On acquiring their first full licence, a new driver is on probation for two years and subject to a limit of six penalty points.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is perfectly correct that the reduction of the limit in Scotland did not reduce the number of accidents. In fact, at one point the number of accidents was 7% higher after the law was changed than before. However, the same researchers who came to that conclusion suggested that the policy failed because it was not accompanied by sustained, high-visibility enforcement, such as random breath tests. They argued that the law needed that, otherwise it would not deter high-risk offenders who regularly ignore the limit.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. Of course, enforcement is absolutely necessary. Noble Lords will know that enforcement is a matter for chief police officers, and it is one that they consider very carefully. It is not difficult to agree with my noble friend that rigorous enforcement is entirely needed in these circumstances to effectively police any limit.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I come back to the question of drug-driving, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Nobody expects there to be available a roadside test for drug-driving that is as effective as a breathalyser for alcohol. However, given that figures from the department show that there are now more deaths from drug-driving than from drink-driving, what in particular is the department doing in terms of training or other equipment that would assist the police in roadside enforcement, which has been shown to be the most effective way of deterring this activity?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There are, of course, a variety of drugs, which need to be tested in different ways. The department is very concerned about drug-driving and will look at it again in the revised road safety strategy. The noble Lord is right that detection is more difficult because of the variety of drugs, but the department is looking carefully at it because the enforcement effort has to be consistent over drugs and drink.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Road Victims Trust does very important work in supporting those families that are affected by drink-drivers and drug-drivers. It is a charity that relies mostly on public donations. What could the Minister do to encourage police and crime commissioners to support the work of the Road Victims Trust through their grant-making?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. The work of that trust is very well regarded. I will consider further what we might do with police commissioners to help support its activities and write to him.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I am told that the programme for drug testing on drivers is in serious disarray, with many people’s samples not being tested. Has the Minister considered using breath as well as blood tests, and can he look at sorting it out? I am told that there are now thousands of tests outstanding, which have not moved towards prosecution.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not an expert in how you test those things, but I am disturbed to hear something that I had not heard previously: the suggestion that the programme is in disarray. I will find out whether the Government believe that it is in disarray and, if it is, what can and will be done about it, and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Labour Government were minded to make this change in 1998, in moving from 80 milligrams down to 50 milligrams? We are now the only country in Europe that is still on 80 milligrams; everyone else has gone down to 50 milligrams. The Welsh Government have sought permission to introduce the change. Even if we do not do it for England, can we at least let the Welsh do what they want to do?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The reason why I stated in my Answer that we were deeply considering the concerns raised was because the opportunity of a new road safety strategy gives just the opportunity to consider whether reducing the limit is the right thing to do. That is what we are going to do. In that process, I have heard clearly what many have said today. We will reflect and consider, because this is a really important matter.
Rules on Duty-Free Goods
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the same rules on duty-free goods apply for those flying from Belfast to the European Union as those flying from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, duty-free shopping between Northern Ireland and the EU would require the application of personal allowances and associated border checks to prevent the uncontrolled flow of tax-free goods into either Northern Ireland or the EU. The enforcement controls required for this would run counter to the Windsor Framework and to the principle of the frictionless movement of people and goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather predictable Answer. Could I press him? Does he understand the frustration and anger that families in Northern Ireland have when they travel on their well-earned holidays to sunny parts of the EU and cannot get duty-free, while other citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom can? Does he understand that not having duty-free is costing Northern Ireland’s small airports about £5 million a year? Does he have any sympathy or empathy with the people of Northern Ireland? Will he make a commitment that when His Majesty’s Government are involved in the much-heralded reset, this will be one of the issues—it may seem a minor issue to some people, but it is quite an important one—to be negotiated with the European Union to change?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She says that my Answer was predictable, but one thing that was entirely predictable was the impact of Brexit, which she campaigned for. Back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair said clearly that Brexit would present specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday agreement, yet the noble Baroness dismissed those concerns. Now that the reality of Brexit does not match up to the fantasy version which the noble Baroness had, she seeks to blame others for the consequences of her own actions.
Let me be very clear: the Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstance. The noble Baroness asked whether I have empathy—absolutely I do. Placing Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom, by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods, provides significant opportunities for growth and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. She mentioned the reset. As part of the EU reset, the EU and the UK have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement. I urge the noble Baroness to support that reset.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be much better for Members of your Lordships’ House to argue for and underpin the value of dual market access whereby businesses and communities in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market? I agree with my noble friend when he said that Brexit was the cause of all these difficulties. It would be better if noble Lords sought to work to eradicate the difficulties and challenges presented by the Windsor Framework to underpin our local economy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for her question and I agree with every word she said. The Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. As she said, it places Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom—which I hope we can make a lot of—by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods. That provides significant opportunities for growth and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister highlighted the principal rationale for there not being duty-free at Northern Ireland airports when flying to the EU as the need to maintain frictionless trade with the Irish Republic, presumably on flights to the Irish Republic. Is the Minister aware that not a single flight goes from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland? Does he agree that we are left in the absurd position of creating an additional problem to solve a problem that, in practice, does not actually exist?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I will clarify this for him. The original Question asked about flights from Belfast to the European Union, so that is what this Question is about. I will be very clear. If we have duty-free, we have to have allowances. If we have allowances, we have to have checks and enforcement. If we have checks, we have to have border infrastructure, and border infra- structure is contrary to the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, one of the key outcomes of the Windsor Framework was the plan for green lanes for goods leaving the UK but staying in Northern Ireland rather than being transported to the Republic. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on the introduction of those green lanes?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
This may have been another of the fantasies that people had about certain Brexit outcomes rather than reflecting reality. What we have ended up with—I pay tribute to the previous Government for negotiating this—is the Windsor Framework, which, as I said, is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. We absolutely support the implementation of the Windsor Framework.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the Minister described a very glowing situation in Northern Ireland, which is not necessarily the experience of the people in Northern Ireland, subsequent to the Windsor Framework. While accepting that the Windsor Framework is what we have to live with at the moment, does the Minister accept that there are many problems, that people cannot get access to many goods and services, and that goods are increasingly not being supplied to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucratic difficulties and economic costs? Would the Minister commit to considering all these matters and to bringing forward a reset that actually benefits Northern Ireland?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and insight. I will say up front, as I have said before, that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and to protecting the UK internal market. We will work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, and political parties and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that aim, taking into account the implementation deadlines. As the noble Baroness said, the Windsor Framework agreement secured substantial legally binding changes and flexibilities that do improve things. I hope that the EU reset will further improve things, and I therefore urge all noble Lords to support it.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Lib Dems next and then my noble friend Lord Grocott.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Government please start to renegotiate our entry into the customs union? It would eliminate the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and many others and increase prosperity for us. There is a very simple and direct set of answers.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and I pay tribute to her consistency on this matter. We share many similarities in our observations and analysis of the impact of Brexit. She will know that we are engaged in the EU reset, which will achieve substantial benefits for growth in the UK and for British citizens travelling around the European Union. I urge her to support the reset.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My noble friend, on this Question and a number of others that I have heard him reply on, demonstrates the passion that he feels for the European Union. It is a passion not shared by everyone. Some of us remember that the 40 years when we were in the European Union were not exactly flowing with milk and honey as far as the British economy was concerned.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My noble friend will notice the support he gets from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Can I have my noble friend’s assurance that we stand very strongly by the Labour Government’s manifesto promise that there will be no question of us rejoining either the customs union or the single market?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend and I agree on many things, but Brexit is not one of them. I hope that when he talks about our experience in the European Union he will acknowledge the OBR’s calculations that, had we remained in the European Union, by the end of this Parliament the economy would be £100 billion larger than it will be otherwise. That is a significant disbenefit of Brexit. As my noble friend knows, the manifesto stands.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, returning to the Question, we on these Benches fully recognise the importance of the agreements reached between the previous Administration and the European Union. However, there is a legitimate question about whether practical solutions could now be explored to address the specific anomaly. Will the Minister consider supporting a joint UK-EU technical group to examine practical options for restoring duty-free parity for Northern Ireland travellers, which could overcome the difficulties the Minister outlined? That process could be undertaken without undermining the Windsor Framework.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Let me be absolutely clear, again. If you have duty-free, you have to have allowances. If you have allowances, you have to have checks and enforcement. If you have checks, you have to have border infrastructure, and if you have border infrastructure, that will be contrary to the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement.
Open Access Rail Services
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the impact on rail capacity of open access rail services.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, in the right circumstances, open access operations can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but they can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. Large areas of the network are already operating at full capacity, and additional open access services can exacerbate constraints along the busiest corridors of the network and impact operators’ abilities to operate revenue-generative services that would reduce taxpayer subsidy.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Can he assure me that any further applications for open access trains will not prejudice the existing train paths, particularly on the east and west coast main lines, and particularly train paths reserved for freight trains, if the Government are to meet their target of increasing rail freight by 75% over the next few years? Further, does he believe that the fact that open access trains enjoy a different charging regime from the companies that run the majority of services, including the state-owned companies, leads to a more profitable situation for open access trains, and will he do anything about it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is correct. Both the east coast and west coast main lines are now heavily constrained, and under the current arrangements the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has recently declined most of the additional applications for train paths simply because there is no room. He is also right to suggest that we need to leave room for increased freight operations. There is a general consensus that more railway freight is good for the economy and the environment, and it would be right to leave paths for freight expansion.
In respect of his question about profitability, it was recently reported that FirstGroup’s open access business achieved a 32% operating profit in the 2024-25 financial year. These profits arise because open access operators do not pay the full cost of accessing the track, and nor do they have to meet public service obligations to operate the services that most people need. This allows them to offer reduced fares and provide journeys only between the most profitable locations. Currently, Lumo is the only open access operator that contributes towards fixed costs via an infrastructure cost charge, which leaves taxpayers to fill the shortfalls. The railways Bill will propose to change the arrangements for access and will consider what needs to be done further in respect of charging.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just said that the ability to grow open access is constrained by the lack of capacity on the network, yet he says that the Government intend to increase rail freight by 75%. How are both of those true?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know the answer to that, as one of the many former Secretaries of State for Transport in the Chamber. The answer is that there are protected freight paths on all the main lines that are likely to carry freight, in order that freight operators can respond to short-term demand measures—which they do frequently, changing trains on a daily and weekly basis—and have room for expansion. It is important that they are left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of freight expansion and the commercial freight businesses would be damaged.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, under the new world of Great British Railways, will the Government allow existing open access operators to continue their current routes beyond the permissions granted by the ORR, even with a new charging regime?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a good point. The regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. Many of these arrangements run for at least 10 years, and it would not be right to curtail those activities. Serious investment has been carried out to allow them. What happens in the future we can debate during the passage of the railways Bill, but for the moment those open access operations that have 10-year or similar periodicity will continue.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I spent 32 years of my career working in the public sector and came to understand that the objective was the needs of the customer, value for the taxpayer, protection of the environment and having regard for society in general. Open access, on the other hand, tends to create conflict, encourages gaming the regulator and inhibits evolutionary change. Will the Minister exercise extreme caution when considering open access bids?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I listened to my noble friend with care and respect because he has significant prior experience in running railways. He is right that we should be careful, because we are dealing with only 1% of the passengers and the rest of the network has 99%. We should be careful to allow people to innovate where innovation is a good thing and where there is space for it. We should not allow innovation where it is not a good thing, costs taxpayers money and cannot be accommodated on a very constrained network.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, a lot of people listening to this might think it quite disedifying and perplexing to hear this hate fest against open access services, which are the most popular with commuters, drive down prices where they exist and give consumers what they are looking for. Under the Government’s proposals, the decision on whether open access will be granted for new or continued services will be transferred from an independent regulator to Great British Railways, which is an interested party as a provider of competing services. Does the attitude expressed by the Minister not show how unfit for that purpose the new Great British Railways will be when it starts with such an antagonistic disposition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord has drunk his own Kool-Aid on this. I made it quite clear that there are benefits to be provided. He also needs to do a bit of careful research, because there are very few commuters on open access services. Commuting is one of the things that has a high fixed cost and generally does not cover the cost of its operations. Open access is successful for people making long-distance journeys irregularly, and some of the operators are very good at it.
The noble Lord also referred to the future railways Bill. We have already made it quite clear that Great British Railways needs to be the body that decides who implements the timetable. Currently, there is not one. It will have to have some rules for access to the railway, which will be developed from the current rules and will be consulted on. If third parties believe that they have been disadvantaged by GBR not following its own rules, or doing something in the wrong way, our proposal will be that they have the ability to appeal to the independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair, but I also think it is really important that your Lordships’ House recognises that nobody is currently in charge of the national railway timetable except the Secretary of State and me. Outside North Korea, that is really not a good circumstance to have.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Further to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, can the Minister confirm that train operators offer choice for travellers, jobs for those in the railway industry and direct links to London from stations not served by other operators? Will he condemn the words of Mick Whelan, the general secretary of ASLEF, who described open access operators as “parasites”?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the railway trade unions are quite capable of speaking for themselves. The noble Lord is right: I did say that open access provides benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers. It does provide jobs, although the House might like to note that Hull Trains has been in dispute with its own drivers since February—a dispute that shows no signs of being resolved and results in a reduced service, for which the operator, which is owned by FirstGroup, has no substitute.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the Minister told us that the west coast main line either is out of capacity or will be very shortly. Why have the Government acquiesced to the previous Administration’s curtailment of the HS2 project?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The curtailment of phase 2a of HS2 was a peremptory decision taken with little thought and, I suggest, no good information. The result is that, as the noble Earl says, the west coast main line is currently full, as decided independently by the regulator, which declined all the applications for open access on it. This Government have to consider very carefully what we now do with the results of that peremptory decision. Cancelling a railway to Manchester in Manchester is a pretty crazy thing to do, but that is what happened. We will be back in due course to say what our proposition is, having thought about it a good deal more carefully than the last Government did.
International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mountevans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the postponement by the International Maritime Organization of a decision on the Net Zero Framework until 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I am here again.
The United Kingdom is disappointed that adoption of the IMO net-zero framework has been delayed by a year. This stalls crucial efforts to give the maritime sector regulatory certainty and to respond swiftly to the urgent threat of climate change. We remain committed to working with other IMO states to secure adoption of the framework next year. We hope that the regulations can take effect as soon as possible, potentially in 2029 at the earliest.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Given the urgency for climate action and the industry’s need for certainty, does he agree that it is vital to maintain momentum, despite the IMO delay? Will the Government commit to continuing their input during the intersessional period, helping shape the technical framework, building consensus and ensuring that the competitiveness of the UK’s shipping industry is supported in the final agreement?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The simple answer to the noble Lord is yes. Adopting the IMO net-zero framework is vital for climate action and giving industry the certainty it needs to make net-zero shipping a reality. The UK will, as he suggests, maximise our effort to maintain momentum so that the framework can be adopted next year. We are committed to working with others at the IMO, which we are honoured to host here in London, and industry generally, to progress the necessary intersessional work to shape the framework’s technicalities.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, while I welcome the IMO decision—as other noble Lords have said, it is a shame that it has been delayed—when it actually comes into effect, who is going to police the enforcement of lower emissions from ships on a worldwide basis? It sounds a pretty horrendous task.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The purpose of the IMO, of course, is to have an international way of policing things, because shipping is necessarily carried out at sea, so policing in the sense of communities does not work. The way it works is that IMO resolves as a whole to have binding regulations and that is what is being discussed at the moment. We desperately need to give some certainty to people who invest large sums of money for the long term in this. This Government are determined to drive this forward in order to give that certainty, both for decarbonisation and for a healthy shipping market.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, last week in London, only 49 of the 127 delegates—around one-third—voted for the net-zero framework. Does the Minister agree with me that the IMO would be well advised to focus a little more time during the interregnum on things such as the uninsured dark fleet, on unwinding the insanity whereby the charterer pays the ship owner’s ballast legs and on not penalising the large ships that are significantly more fuel-efficient than the small ones per freight tonne?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I recognise that the noble Lord has extensive experience. However, I think he must agree that the subject under discussion—last week’s decision to defer—is far from the only thing that the International Maritime Organization does. Some of the things he has listed are, of course, very important. I have no doubt that we will press the IMO not only to move forward with the decarbonisation agenda but to deal with the things on his list.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, these really important negotiations were effectively torpedoed by the Trump Administration using quite unpleasant tactics at the last moment. What reassessment are the UK Government making of how we can further our international climate objectives, with those who support us, in the wake of a more hostile American Administration?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If we are to play the role in the IMO that we should, we have to respect the policy positions of other IMO member states. That means working with people who support our position and trying to persuade those who do not that they are wrong and that they should change. Following last week’s decision, this is precisely what we will continue to do with new vigour.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the decision of the IMO was very disappointing. He will know that UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of options for green shipping. Can he give a commitment from the Government that this will continue, despite this delay?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, who is absolutely right. UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront, which is why it is important for this Government to continue to support those efforts. We need this for our economy and for our position on climate change, and what is good for the country ought to be good for the world.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, following up on the telling question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is the use of drones not a possible answer to policing?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid I am not qualified to judge whether or not flying drones over major oceans is going to work in this respect. I will certainly take that suggestion back to my department to see whether or not they can make sense of it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, given the apparently implacable hostility of the United States Administration and the very low number of states that voted for this framework in London last week, are the Government not deluding themselves in thinking that one more heave and we will achieve it next year? As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, would it not be better if the IMO, guided by the Government, were to focus on the question of the dark fleet? This is being used to ship sanctioned oil around the world in a way that only benefits dictators. Would it not be sensible to get real about some of these things?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord needs to recognise that a worldwide organisation such as the IMO can do more things than one at the same time. What he says about the dark fleet, and what the noble Lord previously said about it, is right, and the IMO should challenge it and do what it can about it. As the noble Lord has just heard, UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of designing new low-carbon and no-carbon shipping. It would be an awful shame if the Opposition Benches were not to support a good piece of the British economy which has the potential to sell not only in Britain but around the world.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, following up on the noble Earl’s point, the Trump Administration unequivocally rejected the net-zero framework, but it went much further than that. It issued warnings on measures it could take against countries voting for the framework, including blocking vessels from US ports, imposing new regulations and extra visa restrictions and applying commercial penalties on government contracts. What is the Minister’s reaction to this kind of pressure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My reaction to that sort of pressure is that we are an important member of the IMO. We need to persuade others to support us. Following last Friday’s decision, we will renew our efforts with those who also support us to persuade people who do not agree with us that this is the right thing for international shipping and for low carbon. We have an important place in the world. We need to pursue those arguments at the IMO and outside it in order to make progress.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
We should all recognise that carbon emissions from shipping are a significant contributor to global warming. Is there any possibility, given the difficulty of global agreement, for any sort of regional agreement and regional enforcement on a European scale for vessels that pass through the channel or visit European ports across the North Sea? We are conscious that, if there were regulation of ships passing through the English Channel, the dark fleet would be affected. If ships registered in the Marshall Islands came into European ports and were refused permission to unload, there would be some sort of enforcement. Can the Minister give some attention to the possibility of some regional enforcement mechanism?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly take away the noble Lord’s suggestion of regional action, but it is not the same as a worldwide agreement to change emissions from shipping, and we should not shy away from trying to persuade people of that, not least because the technology used will always be better and cheaper if it is used worldwide than if it is used in only one region of the world.
Business of the House
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Further to the resolution of the House of 25 July 2024, that for the remainder of the current Session Standing Order 9(5) (Hereditary peers: by-elections) be amended as follows: leave out “eighteen” and insert “36”.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have a sense of déjà vu in moving this Motion today, so I will say few words about why it appears on the Order Paper.
Last July, following helpful and constructive discussions in the usual channels, the House agreed to suspend hereditary Peers by-elections for 18 months. Those 18 months have now passed, and if we were to do nothing, they would have to restart. We have all listened to the discussions that we have had recently, and the usual channels have agreed that is not desirable to restart those by-elections and that the suspension of the by-elections should continue until the end of this Session. This Motion therefore extends the suspension until the spring, when we expect this Session to end. Having listened to the debates we have had recently on this and related issues, I hope this Motion reflects the will of the House and that Members will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message that groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the Minister tell us when the Government were first told by the safety advisory group that it was intending to advise a ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attending this football match? Were any Government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the noble Lord’s sentiment of being appalled. Discrimination in all forms, including antisemitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the Home Office, through the UK football policing unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by West Midlands Police. Banning away fans was one of a package of potential operational options being considered. The initial ban was confirmed by Birmingham City Council only last Thursday and this is when intervention from the Secretary of State, DCMS, and broader government intervention began.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister go a bit further about the Government’s activity? It is quite clear this was not a conventional situation for the local boards that were operating. Is there not some structure by which this intelligence can be brought forward to make sure that local authorities know that there is support from outside available to them, as the Government now seem to be telling us there was?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Clearly, we need to look at why no request for additional resource through mutual aid, which is quite a standard process, was sought beforehand. I assure your Lordships’ House that, as soon as the decision was made known, the Culture Secretary, Home Secretary and Community Secretary had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others, trying to come up with a form of support that would enable the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to be present at the match. Noble Lords will be aware, however, that since then Maccabi Tel Aviv has decided to refuse any allocation of tickets. I assure the noble Lord that the Government were very active in trying to resolve the issue, particularly over the weekend after this became known.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this incident has increased the perception of the UK, here and abroad, as an unpleasant, indeed hostile, place for the Jewish community? The obsession of some politicians with banning the attendance by Maccabi has increased it. Does the Minister agree that it is not enough for the Government to carry on saying, “We will not tolerate antisemitism?” It is not enough for the Government to say, “Here is a few more million pounds for security”. That is just whack-a-mole. Instead of spending money on security, the Government need to get to the roots of where antisemitism is coming from. I suggest it has come from the way young people have been taught nonsense about colonialism and apartheid, and from religious teaching. Does the Minister agree that it is time to bring together all the Jewish organisations and get their collective wisdom to deal with the roots of this and not just stick more plaster on it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We know people are scared, including people in your Lordships’ House. We also know that there is no easy answer, but no answer is appropriate without the involvement of the community. This Government are working with the community to try and address this. Antisemitism is an age-old hatred, and responsibility lies with each and every one of us to fix what is clearly broken. We will use every lever available to the Government to make sure that we build community cohesion and tackle extremist hate wherever it is found across society. I know all my colleagues will agree with me that words are not enough; we will take the action that is required to address this.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. What plans do the Government have to ensure that they can call in and, if necessary, overturn decisions made by safety advisory groups, and what would the implications be for the operational independence of chief constables?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are clear that there should be operational independence for the police; it is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. The safety advisory group role has been much debated, but it is generally seen as a role that works consistently and has an advisory function. What would have been desirable here would have been for those discussions to have taken place and been escalated sooner, before the decision was made. That is a matter for the MHCLG to deal with going forward; however, at the moment MHCLG is working hard on the immediate issue around community cohesion. I think it is right that we allow operational decisions to be made by the appropriate people, but we also need that to happen within the wider context. Clearly, there was a much wider context, and there were much wider potential repercussions of the decision. That will be a matter for MHCLG to discuss with local government.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“It is a long-established principle, set out in law, that the … safety advisory group are operationally independent of government, and that it is for them to take decisions on safety”,
as the Minister has repeated today, but would the Minister agree that this is only half the story? The Safety of Sports Grounds Act, in legislation which I piloted through another place as the Minister responsible, ensures that safety advisory groups must routinely consider relevant government advice and policies, such as from the Home Office on crowd management. Why did it take until the weekend to offer clear, unequivocal advice that nobody in our country would be excluded from football matches because of who they are or their legally held beliefs? Can the Minister assure the House that discussions are under way with safety advisory groups to ensure the full protection of Jewish community fan groups at matches this weekend and in the future?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In relation to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, absolutely: the safety of Jewish fans is of the utmost importance and priority to this Government. On the safety advisory groups, I have not been party to all the discussions with the people concerned, but my understanding is that the resource implications did not get escalated to the right level. That is not an excuse for it happening, but now that we know it happened, we can address it for the future. I know that my colleagues across government are desperately keen to make sure that this happens.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that inflammatory and racist comments by a local Member of Parliament in this matter are an absolute disgrace and contrary to all decent concepts of British values, shared by almost every Muslim as well as every Jew in our population?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. I found it absolutely appalling that a Member of Parliament would initiate a petition of the nature and content that the relevant local MP did. It also highlights the need for us to be clear that, while we might want political interference through the Government in one way, political interference was clearly also at the heart of what went wrong in this instance.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it seems clear that the main motivation locally was in fact to boycott Israel. None the less, it is necessary to get clear the degree of blame that has been attributed to the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv. There is an account in the Guardian today which seems seriously distorted. Have the Government got it clear in their own mind, at least for all useful purposes, that while there may well have been bad behaviour, hooliganism and even some racist behaviour by a minority of fans in Amsterdam, the majority of the harm was committed against them and not by them? It is important to capture the picture that the Government have of what happened in Amsterdam, because it has been recycled a lot.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding of what happened in Amsterdam is as the noble Baroness has just outlined. One of the things that I found most appalling about the decision that was made is that it was based on the risk to fans, primarily. In a country where we manage violence associated with football on a regular basis, we cannot have a situation in which it is the risk to fans which means that those fans themselves are barred from a sporting or other public event.
Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, when updating the other place on the progress of a national inquiry on child grooming gangs on 2 September, the Minister for Safeguarding said:
“Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162.]
But four months on from the announcement of this inquiry, there are no terms of reference and no chair, while four of the victims have resigned from the victims and survivors’ panel. How do the Government seriously still believe that this inquiry will have the confidence of the victims, when all evidence points to the contrary?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. First, I say to him that when the Infected Blood Inquiry and the Covid inquiry were established, it took seven months to put a chair in place. We are currently at the very late stages of determining who the chair for this inquiry should be. It is very important, as he has said, that the inquiry, its chair and its terms of reference have the confidence of victims and survivors. I am sorry that a number of victims and survivors have walked away from the process; they will be welcomed back, should they wish to return.
We are working closely with the charity, NWG Network, to ensure that a range of victims put their views to this purpose; they are doing that currently. I believe that we will be in a position shortly to establish the inquiry, with the terms of reference to ensure that we do what we said we were going to do on the tin: to meet the objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, set of a national inquiry, focusing on grooming gangs and on the ethnicity issue. I hope that we will have full support from the noble Lord and his colleagues in doing those important tasks.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, public trust in statutory inquiries is already fragile, and it is weakened by concerns about independence, delay and failure to act on recommendations. Take, for example, the Jay inquiry: it took seven years and reported in October 2022, but only a tiny percentage of its recommendations have so far been implemented.
This inquiry must be led by victims and survivors; their involvement is essential to its integrity and to uncovering the truth. The inquiry must go where the evidence takes it. If there is any suggestion that there were racial and religious dimensions of abuse, and if these are found to be true, then they must not be minimised. Can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that these issues will be addressed directly and say what steps will be taken to ensure that this inquiry’s recommendations, unlike those of so many before, are fully implemented?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I refer her to the Statement that the Home Secretary made in response to the issues that arose out of yesterday’s Urgent Question in the House of Commons. The Home Secretary said today that the inquiry will
“explicitly examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders”,
as well examine offenders who have been part of grooming gangs and who are not from a particular ethnic minority; the examination of those issues is also paramount.
The noble Baroness will know that we have set a time limit on the inquiry. We want the inquiry to report speedily, because the important thing is to get recommendations. As the Minister in the Home Office responsible for inquiries, I am very clear that we need to get the inquiry’s results, get the recommendations out and, very importantly, see them through as a matter of some urgency.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government are in the late stages of choosing a chair. If the reports are to be believed—that the two preferred candidates have walked away from the inquiry—it means the Government may yet have some time to go. The position of being in such an inquiry without a chair or a timeline is one I understand only too well. The thing we did was to go back to the beginning and to the victims and survivors to really understand what their concerns were. That was the only way that we could move forward. Will the Government perhaps look again at how they are engaging with victims and survivors given that a lot of them are coming out to say that they have lost trust in the process? In those circumstances, it is very difficult to just say “business as usual”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. The confidence of victims and survivors is central to the effectiveness, quality and outputs of this inquiry. As I mentioned in response to the earlier question from her noble friend on the Front Bench, the Government have engaged NWG, a very respectable charity, to engage with victims and survivors on their behalf, and to give a sounding board to the issues that we are involved in. I regret that people have walked away from that process, but there are many others involved in it, and I want to ensure that they reflect strongly both on the appointment of the chair, on the terms of reference and, ultimately, on the recommendations of the inquiry, which is the most important aspect of this business.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one reason why the survivors resigned was that there were very different accounts from them and the Minister for Safeguarding. Indeed, the Minister for Safeguarding implied that anyone who was saying different was using misinformation, in effect, accusing those survivors of lying.
In fact, the account from Home Secretary was very different from that of the Minister for Safeguarding. I think we can safely say that this is not being handled well. It is not like other inquiries. The Minister might want to reassure us that the inquiry’s terms of reference will be absolutely watertight, that it will not be frightened of saying that the rape grooming gangs were predominantly Pakistani Muslim, and that those things will be faced head on. At the moment, there is not enough reassurance that that is happening. The Home Secretary reassured me; I am not sure that the Minister for Safeguarding did.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me first defend the Minister for Safeguarding. I know nobody else in the House of Commons who has committed so much time, energy and passion to ensuring that these issues are addressed. She is paramount in her ambition to secure some outcomes on safeguarding women and girls and on violence against women and girls. As I have said to other noble Lords and noble Baronesses today, the Home Secretary has been clear that the terms of reference will be determined and that the focus will be on grooming gangs and on ethnicity and background. That also means that we need to look at grooming gangs in the round, but there is a real focus on the ethnicity and background of a number of grooming gangs that have operated, which have caused distress and have led to this inquiry in the first place.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, when I was Secretary of State, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to look at Rochdale. I know the kind of pressure that is placed on a politician when you take that kind of decision, so I am much more sympathetic to the Government. I do not think that this should be political. We are going to uncover some very unpleasant truths about how the establishment in this country looked the other way, so can I ask the Minister to give lots of consideration to the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that this should not be judge led? The nature of a public inquiry, led by a judge, will be overly daunting. We need the confidence of the victims, the confidence of the community and the confidence of the country.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support in this area. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that we should try to move away from the judge-led model for this inquiry. That is what we have been trying to do. The very difficult issues that we have been discussing with victims and survivors—of who should be the chair and how the chair should be appointed—are one reason why there has been the delay to date and the very reason that the noble Baroness mentioned. As I said, the Covid inquiry and the Infected Blood Inquiry took seven months to get to a chair. It has been around three and a half to four months since the inquiry was announced. I hope we can make the appointment shortly, along the lines that the noble Lord mentioned.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, the Church of England has in recent years been forced to face up to our own, significant failures in the areas of safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. We were far too slow to realise the devastating impact of safeguarding when it goes wrong, and we are even now struggling to put in place appropriate ways of ensuring accountability and of being led by survivors. Can the Minister therefore tell me what the Government are doing to support all faith communities in addressing safeguarding, to go beyond simply the requirements of the Charity Commission and to show that no group is above the law when it comes to safeguarding?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No group is above the law, and this inquiry has been established for the purposes of examining the challenges that arose in certain communities with regard to child sexual abuse and grooming gangs. I hope the right reverend Prelate will recognise that, for example, in the Crime and Policing Bill—which had its Second Reading last Thursday—there are significant measures to improve safeguarding and reporting measures and to meet the outcome of the Alexis Jay report to government, ensuring that we put in place a range of measures to protect victims, wherever they come from, whether from a faith community or not. I hope the right reverend Prelate can work with the Government during the passage of that Bill to give early implementation to strong safeguarding measures to protect children and ensure that we do not have future victims of these terrible incidents.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
16:46 - Division on Amendment 63 - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 63 agreed.
17:53 - Division on Amendment 64 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 64 disagreed.
Baroness Coffey
“(2A) The regulations must not allow an officer of the authority to approve any planning application which—(a) allows building or development outside the boundaries set out in the local plan, or(b) has a housing density for the area that is below the level prescribed in the local plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent officers to whom decisions have been delegated from approving planning applications which would (1) require land outside of the boundary of a local plan, or (2) build at a lower density of housing than prescribed within a local plan.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. We are at the stage now where we are considering the Government’s significant changes—basically, removing decision-making from councillors on a huge scale, which gives me cause for concern—but I have decided to highlight just a couple of issues.
I shall start with Amendment 87F, which goes to the nub of one of these issues. The Government seem to be proposing, in Part 3, that councillors no longer make decisions and that they be handed over to officials, who are obviously not locally elected. Amendment 87F would require the reporting of planning permission that has been granted but not actually commenced. We already have plenty of homes that have planning approval right around the country, never mind the 700,000 homes that are currently sitting empty. I do not necessarily mean second homes; I am talking about other homes that are sitting there doing nothing. This is important to me when I think of communities around the country that have had huge housing targets imposed on them, when actually, the worst situation is in London, where, sadly, hardly any homes are being built at all. Instead, to be candid, we are seeing this rather Stalinist approach. Amendment 87F is intended to encourage the Government to make sure that at least we have some transparency on what is happening with all the homes for which development permission is being granted, but which are not being built.
Amendment 62A deals with what happens when officials talk about planning applications that do not fit within the boundaries of the plan. We have been told at various stages of the Bill that the real democratic process is in the initial creation of the plan. My experience of various places I have lived in is that communities rarely get involved—councillors do, of course, but there is a lot of consultation—until there is a particular development in their area. Nevertheless, even if the focus will now be put on consideration of where housing can happen—with, we hope, little further argument once that is done—officers should not then be allowed to approve planning applications that sit outside the plan.
The second issue is something I have seen in the Felixstowe area in particular. Land has been set aside for 2,000 new homes on the edge of Felixstowe, but we are already starting to see officers questioning the housing density being proposed, and making recommendations in line with other policies. If the same principle was applied to every single planning application, instead of the land that has been set aside, which is already substantial at a housing density of about 150 per acre or per hectare—I apologise; I cannot remember which—the implication is that three times the amount of land would be needed. That is a huge extension of what communities that have been encouraged to get involved in plans thought they were getting when they signed up to this.
That is why I believe that if councillors want to go beyond the boundaries set out in the local plan and change the density, they should be the ones making that decision, not officers. I am conscious that at this stage, we have not seen any draft regulations or proposals from the Government, and those would be helpful. But my intention today is to press again to make sure that, as and when the regulations come forward—of course, we do not have an opportunity to amend regulations —this issue is covered.
I fully endorse Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. It makes a lot of sense that this House and the other House at least consider the proposals that are going to be put forward, which will determine the sorts of issues I have just mentioned. I also support Amendment 76 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Again, it seems quite straightforward that if there are valid planning reasons why something should be turned down, the elected councillors should get to say that.
This is a huge change that is coming and we need to make sure that there are safeguards for communities, so that when they vote for their local council, or in the future for their mayor, they have some assurance that these will actually have some powers rather than this being dictated from Whitehall, which has not always proved to be the best way to achieve housing in the past. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will confine my remarks to Amendment 63 in my name. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had quite a substantial discussion about the national scheme of delegation and the extent to which decisions should automatically be delegated to planning officers rather than going to a committee.
I do not really want to dwell on all that, other than to say that we are continuing to wait—in my case, with optimism—to hear about a national scheme of delegation and how it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets. In my view—and I will just reiterate it because presumably Ministers are still considering how to proceed with the scheme—it was a mistake that the Government’s proposal for the scheme for consultation did not follow through on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, they should be delegated to planning officers, since the democratic input of the planning committee, as my noble friend Lady Coffey just said, is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan and then we should be guided by that, rather than revisiting every decision under the local plan through the planning committee.
We also continue to wait on the Government consulting on national development management policies. I know it is their intention to do so. But, again, once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated—for example, in relation to planning applications in greenbelt and grey-belt land—those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.
I say that to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because it illustrates that when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this in Committee, it was on my amendment which would have meant that such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution. I completely understand the Minister’s response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations and that as a consequence there may be regular iterations—almost every time, probably, there is a change in the guidance, particularly the National Planning Policy Framework; we tend to have those as a little present just before Christmas every year—so we are probably going to get new regulations on a frequent basis and they may be quite detailed.
However, the first regulations set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. It is not acceptable for that to be subject to a negative resolution. This House should have the opportunity to see, approve and, as my noble friend says, debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. That is the purpose of Amendment 63: to provide that when the regulations are made for the first time, it is on an affirmative basis, and subsequently on a negative basis. When the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move the amendment and, if it secures support in this debate, I may well look to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area based on clear national policies. The proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of delegation are the backdrop to this group of amendments. The Government are ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision-making. However, there is a tendency within the Bill to centralise decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance.
Amendment 62A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is interesting but could be problematic—actually, I thought it less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness’s explanation of the first part of the amendment. Although there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise which mean the local plan is not sacrosanct, on the whole it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away at during its lifetime through precedent.
I have some sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, then along comes the developer—with his eyes on the profit line—who applies for a different balance of houses in which larger, more expensive and more profitable units are to be built. The consequence is that the balance that we need, which is somewhere in between, is not met. The result of allowing developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area. A housing site was allocated in the local plan, under the national rules, for 402 homes. Currently, just over 200 are being built, because of the need—apparently—for five-bed exec homes. The local assessment of housing need shows that what are required are start-up homes and smaller homes with two or three beds. I have a lot of sympathy with that part of the amendment.
Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to seek to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is to ensure that the affirmative resolution would be required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation. That has got to be right, because it will set the tone for the future of what is accepted as being part of a national scheme of delegation and what is okay for local decision-makers. That is fundamental, and the noble Lord is right to raise it in the amendment. If he wishes to take it to a vote, we on these Benches will support him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has not yet had the opportunity to speak to her Amendment 76, so I hope she does not mind if I comment on it. We on these Benches will support the noble Baroness if she wishes to take it to a vote. This amendment would be another move towards empowering local decision-makers with the right to take planning applications to committee where there is a volume of valid objections to an application, and then to have the debate in a public setting.
Amendment 87F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. As the noble Baroness hinted, it is not with local planning committees or authorities, otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction. Those figures are from the ONS, and I am not going to quarrel with the ONS. If the Government could get the housing developers to start building those 1.2 million units, we would be well on the way to the 1.5 million that the Government reckon they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.
This is an important group because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision-making, and between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect local need, nuance and requirements in their local setting. I hope that at least the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will put his amendment to the vote. It is fundamental to the democratic process to have local decisions on planning.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench. As I have reminded noble Lords before, I have sat on a planning committee many times, I have appointed such a committee as a leader of a council and chosen the chairman, and I know it is a very important quasi-judicial position. Planning exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. I use the word arbitrate purposely because people who sit on the planning committee have a difficult job. They have to weigh up so much conflicting information. It is an adversarial system, because, ultimately, either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There is no grey purpose in the middle.
Much of the Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of development and it is only with the ranks of officials that we can get things going. Of course, this is rubbish. Evidence for that assertion was given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which this morning ruled that it was wrong that Governments and quangos had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment, and overturned it on that narrow point. Within an hour, we had officials and Treasury solicitors boasting how this Bill is going to turn that around and reinstall that unnecessary gold-plating—gold-plating that, after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled should not have happened.
The Government’s suggestion that Ministers should usurp planning committees and instead form a national planning committee among themselves in Marsham Street is as fanciful as it is risible. It is a recipe for hurry up and slow down, and it is not fooling anybody that that is going to speed up development.
The premise is that officialdom brings none of its own particular personal or institutional prejudices to bear, but each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England, with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million-worth of cost and preposterous delays. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots over overly precious technical guidance and misdirect themselves that the private motorcar is intrinsically bad, when it is not. And that is before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list.
I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is that they all claim a veto, and it is from this that we have the £100 million bat bridge or that mitigating trade in great crested newts, which are rare in Europe but commonplace in every pond in my electoral ward in Norfolk. It is the way that planning works: it takes only one of these proverbial blackballs or vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasing to hear support for local democracy from around the House, which I can only endorse.
Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which, as drafted, would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny, the affirmative procedure. That requirement is important, as the national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system. It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers.
Such a shift in decision-making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider, debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations before they take effect. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment seeks not to delay progress but to strengthen legitimacy, to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role in scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, the affirmative procedure would provide a vital check and balance at a moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system. I hope that the Government will look favourably on my noble friend’s sensible and proportionate proposal.
Amendment 76, tabled in my name, aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy in the determination of planning applications continues, while ensuring that spurious call-ins are avoided, by requiring the head of planning and the chair of the planning committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. This reflects best practice in many authorities today.
We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring that the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect. Committee chairs and chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed. Retaining their discretion in this way would ensure transparency and trust, without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme.
Ministers may argue that the amendment would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that is simply not the case. It requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected chair, and only when the objections rest on valid planning grounds. That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free-for-all. This is about balance and maintaining efficiency in the system, while giving communities the confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent.
Finally, I will briefly speak to Amendments 62A and 87F, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Amendment 62A is in a similar vein to my own, as it proposes that an officer should not determine an application outside of an adopted local plan. Amendment 87F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, so can the Minister say why the Government have not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that sought to address that?
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jamieson was quicker to his feet than I was. I will make a few comments on Amendment 87F, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.
I served as a councillor for eight years on the unitary Medway Council, working for some of that time on planning, and had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent in the other place. I am very aware that whenever a substantial planning application is put to the local community there is generally uproar and a lot of concern. There may be a lot of consultation and a lot of money spent by the developer. There are presentations to the local public and local councillors, and everything else that goes with that. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept at exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.
Having gone through that process, we find that a lot of the planning applications never actually get built out—and at a time when we have a huge demand for housing. Developers then look again at somewhere a bit simpler to develop out. It is not for us in this place to dictate the market—that is obviously for developers—but the terms that my noble friend Lady Coffey has proposed are right. Perhaps we should start to recognise some of the names among the bigger developers that seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear, obliquely, about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I do not know the exact figure —I do not think that I have ever known it—but we are told that it is in the many hundreds of thousands.
If my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment were to be adopted, it would be very refreshing to know those numbers regularly. It could give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and ask, “Are you going to do this or not?” In addition, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities elsewhere in the country and, if they see similar developer names, they might start to wonder what those developers were doing.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. When I looked at the figures last year, I found that 1.1 million homes were approved that were not built. That is quite a few hundreds of thousands.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his clarification. As I said, I was only guessing that the figure was in the hundreds of thousands; I am glad to have the clarity that is 1.1 million. There we have it: there is the potential for the growth that we are looking for and for the supply of housing within a local plan, yet we seem to keep hearing calls for new land and new development. The answer, however, is in our lap. It would be nice for this to be rather more transparent, so that we could consider it more closely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was an interesting debate on these amendments. Believing in local people also means building the homes that they need and the infrastructure to support those homes. This problem with buildout did not commence in July 2024; it has been there for a long time, and this Bill is trying to do something about it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 62A, which would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment; however, it is common for applications to be submitted for development that do not accord with the local plan. That does not mean that all those applications are controversial or that they require committee scrutiny. To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of Clause 51. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, it is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure.
I recognise that the noble Lord has altered his amendment so that it applies only to the first set of regulations, but I still do not believe that the revised amendment is necessary. We already consulted on our proposed approach in May this year. The Secretary of State, under the Bill’s provisions, will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the Government will conduct another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure that they will work effectively in practice. They are the practitioners, after all, so I look forward to hearing their comments.
Amendment 76 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seeks to give the chair of a planning committee and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee where there are objections on valid planning grounds. Noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment in Committee, and I can confirm that the Government have not changed their position on this issue. The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications—anyone who has ever been on a council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we would not want to support. However, I repeat that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy. It is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 87F relating to the buildout of development, which is a key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of buildout data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. I start by reaffirming to the noble Baroness, as I did in Committee, that I fully support the aim of improving buildout and the rate of residential development. The Government remain committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. That said, I remain of the view, as I have previously set out, that we do not need this amendment to achieve that.
When we debated buildout in Committee, I highlighted our publication in May of an important working paper, which sets out a more effective and comprehensive approach to speeding up buildout. It includes greater transparency of buildout rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine applications from developers that have built out more slowly and greater emphasis on mixed-use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty as a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm CPOs, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. We have also set up our new homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what is causing the problem that is slowing down buildout. We are now analysing the responses to that working paper, and we will set out our next steps in due course. I reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our strategy to support faster buildout, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Can I ask for clarification? I asked a specific question regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and its sections saying that a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. I think the Minister was hinting that this is what the Government are doing, but will they implement that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We did consult on that very issue. We are still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we have done that, I will inform the House of the outcome.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Are the Government not prepared to implement the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act sections as they stand now, despite having the power to do so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can only repeat that, on the powers on which we consulted in the working paper, we want to look at the responses and then implement them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed on this group. It has been a useful discussion.
I say candidly to the Minister that these are the powers of transparency that, if I had served as a Minister in her department, I would have wanted to know of, so that I could go after those developers, hold their feet to the fire and enact what my noble friend has just said from LURA 2023. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(3) In section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations and orders), after subsection (3ZAA), insert—“(3ZAB) The first regulations under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3ZAC) Regulations made under sections 319ZZC or 319ZZD are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (except for the first such regulations).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that when regulations for a national scheme of delegation of planning decisions are made for the first time, these should be made by an affirmative resolution procedure.
“Directions restricting refusal of planning permission in EnglandIn section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications), in subsection (1)(a), after “grant” insert “or, in the case of an authority in England, the refusal,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission or permission in principle by a local planning authority in England.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 64 and 259 are in my name. They seek to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State’s existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities.
Currently, powers under the Act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order that allows him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission. Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration under powers in Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
This amendment addresses an anomaly. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear that this does not significantly change the way in which call-in currently operates. The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice. It merely prevents the local planning authority issuing a refusal and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself.
It is a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The Written Ministerial Statement of October 2012 set out the Government’s existing policy on call-in. Under this policy, in general, the Secretary of State considers the use of his call-in powers only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities.
To conclude, government Amendments 64 and 259 are minor, but they are no less important in enabling the more effective use of the Secretary of State’s call- in powers. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
“(2) After section 74(1)(a) of that Act insert—“(aa) for authorising the local planning authority, in relation to a direction restricting the grant or refusal of planning permission or permission in principle under paragraph (a), to grant planning permission or permission in principle insofar as the planning application is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan if the latter is up-to-date;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This addition to the amendment tabled would provide an incentive to a local planning authority to adopt an up-to-date Local Plan and, in consequence, to regain control over the grant of planning permission in accordance with the Plan.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64 relates to a subject that we did not discuss in Committee. It was tabled only at the beginning of last week. Although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I have to confess that, when I looked at it, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. Under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission but wishes that planning permission to be granted, they can issue a direction for that purpose. If the Secretary of State sees that a local planning authority is likely to refuse a planning application, leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if they sought to move quickly, make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission, or simply call it in, which I would have thought would be the obvious thing to do.
The purpose of my amendment is to test the use case a bit. What worries me is that, on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Clearly, the Secretary of State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan. That is in Section 74, in a later subsection. The Secretary of State can still do that, but it looks to me as if what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. We have spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, emphasising the importance of local authorities having up-to-date local plans and that decisions should be made in accordance with those plans.
My Amendment 65, as an amendment to Amendment 64, would add into Section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act a specific provision that the Secretary of State may issue directions in effect to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan. That seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing democratic input into planning and, indeed, that the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities. I commend Amendment 65 as an alternative approach, but, in the absence of Amendment 65, it seems to me that Amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than substantial benefit. I beg to move Amendment 65.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 87A and 87D in this group. Amendment 87D is a bit of an outlier, so I will come to that later in my contribution. In essence, Amendment 87A is supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the Government in achieving the outcome that they are intending, whereas the Government’s Amendment 64 really is a huge overreach. I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft Amendment 87A.
Government Amendment 64 would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations such as failing EDPs, water shortages and insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. In the press release that was put out, although it did not directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation that could be found was:
“Ministers will be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. Under existing rules, they can only issue these holds when councils are set to approve applications”.
The suggestion is that this amendment would allow the Government properly to use their call-in powers.
It is possible that this explanation is a red herring and does not match the much broader powers contained in Amendment 64. At the moment, Written Ministerial Statements can govern the procedure for call-in; there is no need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I have suggested an alternative to the Government through Amendment 87A. Planning authorities are allowed to refuse planning permission only when there are justified grounds to do so. If that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary of State can call in that appeal, known as recovering the appeal. Therefore, the Government’s stated concern around obstructive or hair-trigger refusal is a fairly minor one to legislate for.
The challenge here is that we need to try to make sure that we improve other parts of the Bill. To give a bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities refusing to grant planning permission, for example where there is insufficient water supply or the like. Up until now, development orders have been used only to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively grant consent. This amendment turns that around for the first time and allows the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission.
Development orders have to be made by statutory instrument—although I believe it is through the negative procedure—but there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local, real-world, on-the-ground constraints to development, and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented.
On the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country and I am very concerned that, given that this clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued. Amendment 87A—by the good help of Alexa Culver, as I say—would not have entire overreach but would potentially help the Minister achieve their aim.
Amendment 87D is on something very close to my heart: considering local communities. They go to a lot of effort to register assets of community value, but at the moment the regulations are such that there are very few examples of buildings being protected from demolition under existing permitted development rights. Those are a pub and, I think, two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example. I have seen this at first hand when a community came together. Registering an asset of community value is not the most straightforward of processes, but they did. When the owner of said community assets was starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not even allowing the local community the chance to buy those assets from the developer.
I am conscious that the Government will have legislation later this year about local communities. I really do not want to have to return at that stage to press the case; I want to get these changes made now. When we bring in legislation to empower communities, which happened in the Localism Act and which I know the Government say they support, let us not continue to have legislation where the rug can be pulled away from those local communities. In the particular case it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished and both used in marketing for housebuilding in that area and as reasons for people to move there. We are talking about all these new communities. Unfortunately, those things could be built and within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses—exactly what happened in that community in Suffolk. It may be the only example. I have not investigated right around the country, but I feel so strongly about it and this Bill has been my first opportunity to try to rectify what I genuinely believe is a wrong. I hope that the House will support that later tonight.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the outlier Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I have Amendment 102, likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets of community value scheme to include cultural assets, so I have a particular interest in how the scheme as it stands at present does and should work.
The noble Baroness’s amendment and mine were considered in the same group in Committee; she pointed out that, as she said just now, some if not all cultural buildings had already been added to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This has been a move in the right direction, but I certainly agree that assets of community value should be added. Strangely, we have a situation where, through the 2015 order, certain cultural venues such as concert halls and theatres are protected but community assets as such are not, which feels incredibly inconsistent, certainly in relation to the community asset scheme as it stands now.
I find what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has described today, and in considerable detail in Committee —about how a new owner can ride roughshod over a community—not just wrong but, frankly, outrageous. Legislation is not always the right thing, as the Minister points out quite a lot, but I think this is a perfect instance of where a gap in the law ought to be plugged and ought to be addressed in the community’s interest. I will certainly vote for Amendment 87D if the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, takes it to a vote.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 64 has been packaged in the media, and even in the Marshalled List, as augmenting the Secretary of State’s power to call in an application, but, as the Minister made clear in opening, in fact it does not do that. It leaves Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the call-in power, unchanged. What it actually does is augment the holding power, under Section 74 of the 1990 Act, so that the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal of planning permission to facilitate consideration of the call-in power. In that context, I seek some clarification from the Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law.
Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called-in planning applications: there is a statutory safeguard in Section 77(5), which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. That, plainly, will not be changed, because there is no proposal to amend Section 77, but the obligation for the Secretary of State to cause a hearing to be heard is also the subject of a policy that exists in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on call-in proceedings. The policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right of a local authority or an applicant to be heard under Section 77(5) is to be exercised by means of the inquiry procedure. The public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater scrutiny of the evidence and greater public participation than a mere one-day informal hearing.
Is the Minister prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate’s published policy and that the right of a local planning authority to insist on an inquiry and to exercise its statutory right to be heard through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and will remain?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 64 was billed by the Minister, in the letter that she wrote to all Peers laying it out, as seeking to address a minor gap. I am not sure about that. I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. I take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I am grateful for the way in which she presented the circumstances in which call-in takes place, and the safeguards, in her introduction to the amendment, but the amendment could be read as a considerable change in tone on the Government’s intentions and role in the planning system.
I am probably caricaturing it but, under the current arrangements, the Government used to be regarded almost as a knight on a white horse. They would come in at the last minute on planning decisions where the local authority was getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were going to be to the detriment of the environment. That was a rather fine thing, in my view.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, in the last group your Lordships’ House gave a pretty strong steer when it felt that the role of councillors and councils in determining local planning applications locally, based on a plan—not acting capriciously but on balance, with all the material considerations taken into account—was a very important principle, not just for the way that we run things in the country but for the fact that decisions are made by accountable people in a democratic way.
I am astonished that government Amendment 64 has come forward—although I am not surprised that the Government’s Back Benches are so sparsely populated. What this amendment would do is emasculate the principle of a proper local planning process. It raises the spectre of political interference, at very short timescales, in what is a quasi-judicial process. Clearly—and this is the reason I will ask for reassurance in a moment—it demonstrates a prematurity that is likely to slow down the process of development, rather than speed it up.
My evidence for the slowing down was given by my noble friend Lord Banner. I did not take down all the different sections and stages, but there are clearly statutory safeguard overrides, as well as practice guidance, procedures and statute, so that when development processes come forward, everybody has their say, in the right way, with the appropriate process. While there will always be a winner and a loser, at least people can say that it was done properly.
My concern with this is what the process will be whereby a Minister may call in a decision for stalling it. What intelligence will be relied on, and on what timescale? Planning committee agendas are normally published seven days in advance of the meeting. So within five working days of a recommendation for refusal from the officers, what is the process by which Ministers will be advised, “You’d better jump in on this one; this one might go wrong”?
What happens if there is a recommendation for approval but, on the basis of hearsay, rumour or possibly a letter in the local newspaper, there is a suggestion that the committee might decide to go the other way? I cannot quite understand how that would normally happen, because, as anyone who sits on a planning committee knows, they keep their mouths shut for risk of predetermination. This is where I am concerned about party-political interference in planning. There may be nods and winks and comments such as, “We think that so and so on the other side might be going this way”.
It all belies the fact that, as we all know, because the planning committee meets regularly and because it is quite an onerous thing and other people have different responsibilities, there is a series of substitutions, which are quite proper, with trained substitutes on that committee. With all those moving parts, I wonder, with a week to go, on what basis would the Secretary of State jump in?
I play to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about a quango report. At what stage are we going to prematurely judge that, of all the different material considerations, one report may be more important than another, when we all know that it is the role of the committee to balance all of them in the round and take in all the material considerations? Are we going to sleepwalk into a situation where Ministers give an additional vicarious respectability to one set of reports over another, with only half the evidence to hand and without seeing in the round the benefit of all the objections, proposals and debate in the chamber? We understand that the purpose of the Bill is to speed up planning, but it seems that its consequence is to slow it right down. How on earth would we end up in a situation where Ministers could be properly advised?
In this House, and in Parliament, there is a proper 12-stage process. We are at stage 10 of 12. For the reasons that my noble friend Lord Banner gave—about the interplay of all the complexity and detail here—this should have been brought forward in Committee or at a much earlier stage. But here we are, at the 11th hour, in Parliament’s revising Chamber, trying to work this out on the hoof. I cannot support this. It rides a coach and horses through established process, principles and democracy. It is half-baked, and it should be thrown out.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to speak in strong support of Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It seeks to address a clear gap in our planning framework: the ease with which valued community buildings can be demolished under permitted development rights.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for reminding us in Committee that, since 2017, it has not been possible to demolish a pub under permitted development rights and that, since 2020, the same protection has rightly been extended to theatres, live music venues and concert halls. But every other community building—from sports halls to scout huts, youth clubs, village halls, arts centres, community hubs, social clubs, rehearsal rooms, day centres and faith spaces—can legally be demolished through permitted development under class B, in Part 11 of the general permitted development order, usually via only a prior approval notice to the council. In other words, a community can spend months achieving an asset of community value status, believing it has secured protection, yet the owner can still flatten the building with no full planning process, and the opportunity to save it is lost for ever.
The Minister suggested in response to the noble Baroness in Committee that local authorities can already protect such assets by issuing Article 4 directions. Although that may sound reassuring, in practice it is neither adequate nor realistic. Article 4 powers are slow, complex and discretionary. They require public consultation, ministerial approval and significant resources that many councils simply do not have. They are rarely used pre-emptively, and too often they are invoked after buildings have already been lost.
This amendment would provide a far simpler and fairer solution: an automatic national safeguard for assets that communities have already demonstrated to be of real social value. These are not sentimental relics but the social infrastructure of everyday life: the places where children learn to play sport, where community choirs rehearse, where food banks and lunch clubs operate and where amateur dramatic societies, after-school classes and local support groups meet. Once demolished, these spaces are almost never replaced.
As has been referenced, the London Nightlife Taskforce, which offers strategic advice to the mayor and will publish a major action plan later this year, has already underlined the urgency of this issue. Its early findings show that demolition and redevelopment continue to erode London’s community and cultural infrastructure, despite existing local powers. The task force, supported by the Night Time Industries Association, the Music Venue Trust and UKHospitality, is calling for stronger statutory safeguards to prevent the loss of spaces that sustain local life and creativity. Although its recommendations are directed at London, the same challenge exists nationwide. Communities in Manchester, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow and countless smaller towns face the same slow erosion of shared civic space, too often replaced by development that contributes little to social cohesion.
If we accept that pubs, theatres and music venues deserve protection from demolition, surely the same logic must apply to any building formally recognised by its community as an asset of value. This modest reform would give communities a genuine say before their most valued spaces disappeared.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who is one of the House’s great champions of the arts and cultural life. Briefly, I will express the Green group’s support for Amendment 87D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. This would ensure that assets of community value cannot be demolished. It is worth going back to where the assets of community value started, in 2011. Creating that category of buildings and structures was so hard fought for, and it could, in effect, be lost under permitted development rights. The noble Baroness has identified a really important issue, and I hope the House will back that.
I rise chiefly to speak against government Amendment 64. We have already heard some important points. Both the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fuller, pointed out just how late this is coming in the process and how we have not had the chance to have proper scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is right about a considerable change in tone, but I would go further and say that it is a considerable change in the direction of the entire law, and that should surely not be done this late in the process.
More than that—like other noble Lords, I am sure— I have received a pleas from the Better Planning Coalition, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts to reject this government amendment. If we look at the situation and the arguments they make, absolutely rightly, we see that this amendment embeds into the law a concerning narrative about development at any cost. It does not acknowledge, and it pushes aside, the fact that economic activity and human life are dependent on the environment —the economy is a complete subset of the environment.
The core purpose of planning policy is supposed to be to ensure that developments do not happen in the wrong place or destroy nature gratuitously or without adequate consideration. It really feels, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, that this would open up decisions to politics. Well, this is purely politics: it seems to have been put in to drive headlines that say that the Government are taking a hard line with councils that oppose new housing.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.
When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.
Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.
If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.
Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.
For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.
I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?
The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.
I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.
Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.
Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am confused. The Minister referred to Section 31 directions, but surely, we are talking about Section 74 directions. Section 31 is to do with grants for local authorities.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies: I got my numbers mixed up there. I am talking about the call-in power.
Such cases could include, for example, those which may conflict with national policies on important matters, may have a significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.
Lord Banner (Con)
I appreciate that this amendment would not change the procedures, but the question I was seeking the Government’s clarification on is: will the Government commit to not diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call-in process is exercised through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation, rather than the lesser process of a hearing? Will the Government commit not to diluting that policy requirement for an inquiry?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Of course we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure they are fit for purpose. It is very important that we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural changes in regard to the issues he raises.
Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to government Amendment 64, seeks to incentivise local planning authorities getting up-to-date local plans in place and to allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction where an up-to-date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan. I assure the noble Lord that we appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment. As I have often said, we too want to ensure that local planning authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development which is in accordance with up-to-date local plans. However, we are not convinced that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle. Where the Secretary of State has not also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish. We believe that this addresses the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 87A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would amend secondary legislation to enact government Amendment 64. I assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward the necessary changes to secondary legislation shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill.
Amendment 87D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to remove assets of community value from the permitted development right which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments, so I understand her issue about where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it is in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that local communities do not lose the community assets which are so important to them. We do not have many old houses in our town, because it is a new town, by its very nature. However, I have relayed before my story of a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Symonds Green. An application came in for that property, and we tried very hard to get it listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended; so much work had been done to it internally that we could not get a listing for it and, unfortunately, it was, sadly, demolished. The reason I am saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I will come on to in a minute.
It is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities. We know how important these buildings are, and Members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. These include pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other buildings of local value.
Local planning authorities, as I have stated before and as I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, can use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area, where it is appropriate to do so. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about Article 4 and the possible complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.
There is also another route that local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it does not carry the weight of statutory protection that Article 4 does, provides a checklist for communities and planners for buildings that cannot be listed, against which they can be checked, should proposed development come forward.
We believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review, and this and other matters related to that are always under review. With these assurances, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I think we are debating Amendment 65, which I moved.
The debate has illustrated that, in effect, this is the debate we ought to have had in Committee. There is one set of people—I count myself among them—who cannot understand what the Government are trying to achieve, and why the amendment is necessary, and another set who are saying that it gives the Government powers to do things that might be objectionable.
Actually, of course, the Government have all those powers. If they wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they could issue guidance for that purpose. They could issue national development management policies, for which they have powers. The question I keep coming back to, which is where I started, is: what is this trying to achieve? Calling it an “anomaly” seems to be completely misleading. If you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the granting of planning permission, that stops a local authority giving planning permission because, once it is given, you cannot take it away. Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no, and then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal or a further application, and many other routes—and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I am afraid that I cannot see the benefit.
The Minister was kind enough to say that my amendment was not necessary, as she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that is fine. So I do not need to proceed with my amendment and will beg leave to withdraw it, in expectation that we will focus on Amendment 64 itself.
“Directions giving deemed planning permission: special regard to heritage assets(1) In section 90 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (directions deeming planning permission to be granted for certain development with government authorisation), after subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (special regard to listed buildings) applies to a government department or the Secretary of State in considering whether to make a direction under this section as it applies to the Secretary of State in considering whether to grant planning permission.”(2) In section 90(2B) of that Act (inserted by subsection (1))—(a) for “applies”, in the first place it appears, substitute “and section 58B of this Act (special regard to other heritage assets) apply”;(b) for “it applies” substitute “they apply”.” Member’s explanatory statement
There is currently a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their settings and their features of special architectural or historic interest when deciding whether to grant planning permission. This new Clause would apply that duty to certain powers to put in place deemed planning permission (including in relation to a Transport and Works Act project).
“Planning permission etc: extension of time in event of legal challenge(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 91 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute—“(3A) In subsections (3B) to (3BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which a development to which a planning permission relates must be begun (see subsections (1) and (3));“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of a grant of planning permission or of a deemed grant of planning permission.(3B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(3BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(3BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (3B), (3BA) or (3BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(3BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (3BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (3B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(3BF) The references in subsections (3BA) and (3BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(3) After section 92 insert—“92A Extension of outline planning permission etc in event of legal challenge(1) This section applies where a person is given permission by a court to bring proceedings challenging the validity, in respect of the development of land in England, of—(a) a grant (or deemed grant) of outline planning permission, or(b) the approval of reserved matters under such a permission. (2) Any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running when the court gives permission to bring the proceedings is extended by one year.(3) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by one year.(4) If a party to the proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, any reserved matters application period or implementation period that is running at that time is extended by two years.(5) Any extension of a period under subsection (2), (3) or (4) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(6) Any extension of a period under subsection (3) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) (if they would otherwise overlap).(7) Any extension of a period under subsection (4) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (3) (if they would otherwise overlap).(8) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (4), an implementation period that is determined by reference to an approval of a reserved matter starts to run when the reserved matters application is made (and the reserved matters application period ceases to run at that point).(9) Subsection (10) applies if a reserved matters application is made without taking advantage of an extension under this section.(10) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of days by which the reserved matter application period is extended under this section.(11) Subsection (12) applies if a reserved matters application period is extended (or further extended) under this section and the reserved matter application is made taking advantage of the extension but before the end of the period as extended.(12) Any implementation period determined by reference to the approval sought by the reserved matters application is extended by the number of whole days remaining in the reserved matters application period (as extended) when the reserved matters application is made.(13) In this section—“implementation period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which development to which the permission relates must be begun (see section 92(2)(b), (4) and (5));“outline planning permission” has the same meaning as in section 92;“reserved matters application” means an application for the approval of a reserved matter in pursuance of section 92;“reserved matters application period” , in relation to a grant of outline planning permission, means the period before the end of which a reserved matters application relating to the permission is required to be made (see section 92(2)(a), (4) and (5)).(14) In this section, references to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).” (4) In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in section 18 (limit of duration of listed buildings consent), for subsections (2A) and (2B) substitute—“(2A) In subsections (2A) to (2BB)—“implementation period” means the period before the end of which works to which a listed building consent relates are required to be begun in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2);“relevant proceedings” means proceedings to challenge the validity of a grant of listed building consent or of a deemed grant of listed building consent.(2B) If a person is given permission by a court to bring relevant proceedings, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BA) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by one year.(2BB) If a party to relevant proceedings is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision determining the challenge, the implementation period is extended by two years.(2BC) Any extension of a period under subsection (2B), (2BA) or (2BB) is to run concurrently with any other extension of the period under the same subsection (so far as they overlap).(2BD) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BA) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BE) Any extension of a period under subsection (2BB) is to run consecutively to the previous extension of the period under subsection (2B) and any previous extension of the period under subsection (2BA) (if they would otherwise overlap).(2BF) The references in subsections (2BA) and (2BB) to determining a challenge are to determining it after a full hearing (and accordingly do not include a refusal of permission or leave).”(5) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not operate to extend any implementation period that has already expired.(6) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (2) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 91(3B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected;(b) subsections (3B) to (3BB) of section 91 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (2)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.(7) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (3) comes into force, section 92A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by subsection (3)) applies so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under that section occurs on or after that day, but not otherwise.(8) In relation to proceedings begun before the day on which subsection (4) comes into force (“the commencement date”)—(a) any extension of time under section 18(2B) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that had already arisen before the commencement date as a result of those proceedings is unaffected; (b) subsections (2B) to (2BB) of section 18 of that Act (as inserted by subsection (4)) apply so far as any event in the proceedings giving rise to an extension of time under those subsections occurs on or after the commencement date, but not otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time for implementing a planning permission or listed building consent where the permission or consent is challenged in legal proceedings. There would be an extension of one year in all cases, with a further year where the case goes to the Court of Appeal and a further two years where the case goes to the Supreme Court.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 67 and 261.
The Government listened carefully to the persuasive arguments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, about the unfairness that occurs when planning permissions lapse simply because they are caught up in lengthy judicial or statutory review proceedings. We agree that the current provisions are too limited and do not reflect the realities of modern litigation.
At present, Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides only a single one-year extension when proceedings are begun to challenge a grant of permission or consent. This is narrow in scope; it does not apply to outline permissions or reserved matters approvals, and it does not cater for cases that progress through the appellate courts. In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay.
Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and predictable approach. Where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings, the commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one-year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added. These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings.
This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and the delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.
We considered the “stop the clock” proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable timeframes. Our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. The amendment strengthens the Bill’s overall purpose: to streamline planning processes and to remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for all the meetings we have had to discuss this and for his constructive approach to this matter.
I will come to the other amendments in this group when they have been spoken to. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 77 to 79 propose to limit applications for judicial reviews that are without merit. It is proposed that they may be blocked by a judgment of the High Court. The amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and me. In the likely absence of the noble Lord, I have undertaken to speak in support of them.
On Monday, the first day on Report, I spoke to Amendment 83, which describes a means of circumventing lengthy and costly judicial reviews that can affect infrastructure projects of national significance by giving the associated development consent orders—DCOs—the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and consultation. The purpose was to protect projects from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions that are liable to promote their own interests at the expense of those of the wider community or the national interest.
In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The average time it takes to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a development order. The revised application might become subject, in turn, to a further judicial review. Despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal processes can be so costly and cause such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case, despite its lack of legal merit.
I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merit. However, a very large and increasing number of requests for judicial reviews are rising nowadays, and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and pre-empt the legal resources.
The fashion for judicial views may have been greatly stimulated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s. These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in Archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of the threat of a nuclear missile strike. They were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Kelvedon Hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country, while the rest of us perished. It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated.
The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents would have been given very meagre compensation. It was said that they would have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one-bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked about whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous. Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and to resort to judicial procedures to block them? This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons.
Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the Government, and in withdrawing it I was clear that I was somewhat disappointed by their response, because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming from the Government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose that, in various circumstances pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act, the listed buildings and conservation Act and the hazardous substances Act, the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration. I believe that the Court of Appeal already has this prerogative, so there may be very little substance in these amendments, but nevertheless they serve to highlight the problem.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 104 and the government Amendments 67 and 261, which would extend the time for commencing a planning commission which is subject to judicial review.
I start by saying to the Minister that the feelings are entirely reciprocated. I am very grateful to the Government for the continuous engagement on this issue over quite a long period recently. The Government’s amendments, although differently worded to mine, would have essentially the same effect and would make a significant difference, as would my amendment, to mitigating the prejudice to developers whose planning permissions are subject to challenge, and indeed land promoters and landowners too, and to reducing the incentive on claimants to bring and perpetuate meritless challenges. So I support the government amendments and I do not need to press mine.
However, this amendment was not the most impactful of my package of amendments. The planning world is watching what the Government will do on Hillside; it is going to be debated next week, and I reiterate my encouragement to the Minister and her colleagues to roll out the same level of engagement and co-operation as we have had in relation to “stop the clock” for JR to the Hillside amendment, because that is the one that will really make a massive difference.
In the interests of time, I do not want to say very much about the other amendments in relation to totally without merit judicial reviews for non-NSIP judicial reviews other than this. I supported the sentiment and principle of those amendments in Committee. The difficulty I have with them on reflection is that, given that to be workable and constitutionally appropriate, the striking out of any right of appeal for totally without merit cases would need a hearing, the problem with extending it to all planning judicial reviews is that it would eat up the very limited bandwidth of the planning court. The planning court simply does not have the resources to deal with the proliferation of hearings that apply the Clause 12 procedure to all planning judicial reviews as opposed to the NSIP judicial reviews, which are much narrower. There have been only about 40 NSIP judicial reviews ever, whereas in the planning context it is a lot greater. So reluctantly, I do not think those amendments are workable at present stage, but if there were to be a new planning Bill in future, it should be looked at.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I have a simple question about government Amendment 67, which would allow an extension of time to implement a planning permission or a listed building consent where there has been a legal challenge. This returns to the ecological surveys which got such a discussion in the group before lunch. Ecological surveys are taken at a particular point in time, and, particularly in this era of the climate emergency, species are moving and appear and disappear. How are the Government planning to deal with the fact that the ecological survey may become profoundly out of date and so, if this goes on for a long period, the grounds on which the decision was made initially may need to be redone? Is there some plan to deal with that issue?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.
To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.
The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.
These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.
The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.
Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is not here, I shall put on the record that there is work ongoing on the Hillside issue, as he is very aware. We continue to engage with him on that issue.
I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer. I appreciate that two years is quite a long time. If surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. I will come back to her on that issue.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendments 77, 78 and 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. These seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed as totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects the intention of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008. The measures being taken forward in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence, which made clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in Clause 12 would be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
Amendment 77 seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. As mentioned in Committee, this is not necessary as it is already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. In light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not move them.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I am happy not to move the amendments. However, I observe that the government amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I have been describing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Provision of advice by Natural England to public authorities(1) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 4 (advice)—(a) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Natural England is not required by subsection (1) to give advice in response to a request to which subsection (1B) applies that is made by a public authority other than a Minister of the Crown.(1B) This subsection applies to a request for advice relating to—(a) a specific development that requires, but has not been granted, planning permission under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”),(b) an application for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission required under that section,(c) permission in principle for a specific development under section 58A of the 1990 Act, and(d) the approval of a reserved matter within the meaning of section 92 of the 1990 Act.(1C) Natural England may give advice in response to a request to which it is not required to respond as a result of subsection (1A).”;(b) in subsection (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1C)”.(3) After section 4 insert— “4A Supplementary provision(1) Natural England must prepare and publish a statement setting out how it intends to deal with requests for advice which it is not required to give as a result of section 4(1A).(2) Natural England must review the statement before the end of—(a) the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is first published, and(b) each successive period of five years.(3) Natural England may review the statement more than once during any of those periods.(4) Natural England may revise the statement following a review.(5) Natural England must publish any revised statement.(6) Before publishing a statement (including a revised statement) under this section, Natural England must—(a) consult the Secretary of State, and(b) make any changes to the statement that the Secretary of State may require in response.(7) But the duty in subsection (6) does not apply in relation to the publication of a revised statement which, in the opinion of Natural England, contains no substantial revisions.(8) The Secretary of State may require a change as mentioned in subsection (6)(b) only if the Secretary of State considers that the change would promote Natural England’s general purpose.”(4) The duties imposed by section 4A(6) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as inserted by subsection (3), may be satisfied by consultation carried out, and changes made, before this section comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would permit Natural England not to respond certain to requests for advice under section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and require it to publish a statement about how it intends to deal with requests to which it would no longer be required to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, there are two government amendments in this group. I will introduce government Amendments 68 and 262 and respond to the other two amendments at the end of this debate.
Government Amendments 68 and 262 seek to provide Natural England with discretion when considering how best to deal with requests for advice from public authorities relating to planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires that Natural England must provide advice to all requests from public authorities, regardless of the level of environmental opportunities or environmental risk related to the project. This requirement exists despite the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 already setting out a narrower scope for when Natural England should be consulted on planning applications for Town and Country Planning Act casework.
Amendment 68 removes this “must” requirement and provides that Natural England must produce an operational statement setting out how it intends to deal with such requests for advice in relation to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This approach will avoid Natural England having to provide advice to routine and duplicative casework and instead allow it to prioritise higher-risk and higher-opportunity casework. This will help to resolve issues up front, which will speed up decision-making and embed opportunities for nature recovery within plans and projects. It will also allow growth and nature to be delivered together.
In parallel, Natural England will continue to expand its suite of standing advice, providing local planning authorities with easier access to guidance from the outset. This helps to avoid unnecessary consultations and ensures that engagement is focused where bespoke advice is most valuable. It also brings the requirements on Natural England in line with those on other statutory consultees, which are not required to provide advice to all queries.
In 2024, Natural England wrote to all local planning authorities setting out its aim to focus effort on higher- risk and higher-opportunity planning casework. This amendment supports this strategic shift, which Natural England welcomes. Crucially, this does not remove Natural England’s advisory role but refocuses it from handling large volumes of low-risk casework to more strategic engagement that can deliver greater environmental impact. This aligns with government ambitions as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Matthew Pennycook MP in March. This stated a need to reconsider the means of engagement and provision of expert advice, and that in some cases this could be done through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at local and strategic level, reducing the need for comments on individual planning applications. This corresponds with recommendations made by Dan Corry in his independent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape.
To provide clarity for local planning authorities, the amendment would require Natural England to produce an operational statement that sets out how it intends to deal with requests for advice relating to Town and Country Planning Act casework. This will make it clear to local planning officers and authorities how they can expect to receive Natural England advice. This operational statement would be produced in consultation with the Defra Secretary of State. Natural England will provide further information to local planning authorities on the implementation of this change in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the premise on which the amendment she moved is based. My Amendment 194 seems to be a little out of place. I should have asked for it to be taken with the rest of Part 3, because it seeks to amend Clause 86 in Part 3 to insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this Act should indeed belong to a public body.
Clause 83 provides the power to acquire land compulsorily, including new rights over land, to Natural England, subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides that the power can be exercised only if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an EDP. This came as a surprise to many, not least, as the Minister will be aware, the NFU, which is deeply anxious about the purport of Clause 86, in particular the definition of a “designated person”. It is alarmed that Clause 83 gives Natural England the compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause. It is further exasperated by Clause 86 allowing the Secretary of State to designate “another person” to exercise Natural England’s functions, potentially giving another party compulsory purchase powers. On what basis would those powers be given and who would these people be?
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for lending her support to this amendment. I am grateful to her, and indeed to the Ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. I would like to understand what bodies the Government have in mind. Are they individuals? Are they organisations? Can the Ministers name them this evening, so that we have an idea who they are? Is it an indication that, as I understand it, Natural England is losing staff over the coming months and therefore the Government are accepting that, possibly, Natural England will not have the capacity to cope with the volume of work set out in Part 3?
We will go on to consider the whole remit of compulsory powers in Clause 83 onwards. I think that will be next week, unless we are here all night. I would just like to understand the basis on which it will not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the first time, who the other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that, for the purposes of that clause, a “designated person” must be a public body.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group. Government Amendment 68 would permit Natural England to not respond to requests for advice under Section 4(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, so that it can prioritise more important cases. That reflects pretty well what is happening at the moment, if the truth were known, because the reality is that Natural England’s resources are very thinly stretched and, in many cases, it provides advice simply on the basis of standing guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. I want to probe the Minister a bit further on this and I apologise for giving her grief when she is clearly beset with some affliction.
I have three questions. The first is, it is my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice. Should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions?
The second question is: has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities when we know that only one in three local planning authorities now has in-house ecological advice? We are facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I know that they can buy that in, but it is less flexible and less readily available.
My third question is: should we perhaps wait for this change to happen once the Government’s forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place? This is a consultation about consultation—this is the sort of world we live in these days.
Noble Lords are being asked to approve this change, which it is intended will come in immediately on the passing of the Bill, and there is a specific clause that effects that, without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of prioritisation would sit. If a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England is supposed to produce were placed in the Bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled. So I think that hastening rather more slowly on this would make for a much better decision.
I support Amendment 194 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State of Natural England’s role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body. In talking to the Minister—I was pleased to be able to talk directly to both Ministers about this issue—the only examples that so far have been put forward for this power of delegation have been either to National Parks England or the Marine Management Organisation, in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP. That is entirely appropriate. If a reliable public body is publicly accountable and has the right sort of expertise to draw up and implement an EDP, it is appropriate that that happens. But, if it is normally going to be a public body, why do we not just say “a public body” in the Bill rather than “another person”?
There needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to “another person” to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships that I am sure most EDPs will involve, where Natural England can partner with or delegate the delivery but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners, including businesses, including some of the natural resources businesses that are growing up, NGOs, landowners and farmers. I am sure that there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs and that that will happen widely. But that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, co-ordinating the delivery by partners in line with the EDP.
That partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision. Clause 86 is, in reality, about taking the development and/or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the body that is the Government’s statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation and potentially giving extensive responsibilities and powers to a person or persons as yet unidentified. If they are to be public bodies, why not state that in the Bill? If they are not, can the Minister help us understand a bit more who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue from doing these things successively over time, and which they will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.
If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might, in the future, have all these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs; not knowing their background and expertise; not knowing the extent of the powers they are to be given, and their stance on and approach towards compulsory purchase. Public bodies are, to a large extent, known quantities; another person or persons unknown are not. If public bodies screw up, the Government can sack the chairman. I know all about that. The Government have no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. Can the Minister tell us how they will hold them accountable? Can she reassure landowners about their concerns? If Ministers are pretty clear that, in reality, they would delegate these important duties and powers only to a public body, I would suggest that the safest way forward is simply to reassure everybody by saying in the Bill that it will be a public body.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.
I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.
I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.
I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in view of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, saying that she is opposed to the measure, I feel it is my turn to stand up and say that this is a very sensible amendment. Based on my time in Natural England, I strongly support it.
Generally, it was my experience that local authorities bounced over to Natural England tens of thousands of planning applications, most of which were irrelevant to us, in that we had no real reason to give a view. If the application affected an SSSI, a national nature reserve, a national park or AONB as they were they called, something protected by the habitats regulations, or developments on the finest agricultural land, then Natural England was duty bound to respond, and always did so—in complex cases sometimes not as quickly as some would have liked. However, we had to get it right, or as right as possible, since it could result in the rejection of the application by the council, leading to appeals and judicial reviews and possibly the loss of a good infrastructure project.
What are the statistics to justify this change? In its 2023-24 annual report to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Natural England reported that it had received 24,664 planning application consultations; 20,503 consultations—91.7%—were responded to within 21 days or to an otherwise agreed deadline. Some 754 deadline extensions to planning application consultations were granted—that is 3.7%. Natural England sent 20,370 responses to customers, with the average time taken to provide a substantive response being 11.9 days. In addition, Natural England received 1,096 pre-application consultations, either directly from developers or via local planning authorities. They responded to 68.9% of these within 21 days or to otherwise agreed deadlines.
Natural England now deals with a high proportion of complex cases, mostly relating to impacts on habitat sites or protected landscapes such as national parks and national landscapes. In 2023-24, this included receiving 161 consultations for nationally significant infra- structure projects, or NSIPs, 895 local plan consultations and 96 environmental impact assessment requests relating to screening and/or scoping.
In the past few years, there has been a 40% increase in NSIPs, and they require a lot of work and, in some cases, site visits and meetings. However, as the Minister said, Natural England is legally bound to respond to all requests. All told, in that year, Natural England had more than 32,000 planning consultations, and in 47% of them, it had no statutory remit, since they were very low risk. That is 15,000 cases where Natural England had to spend time writing back, saying that it had nothing to comment on. I got the clear impression, and I am not that cynical, that many local authorities bunged applications to Natural England to tick a box and show their local representatives that they were investigating every avenue before granting permission and that even Natural England was happy because it did not object.
Therefore, I was very keen for Natural England to move to this new strategic approach and shift to focusing on high-risk and high-opportunity casework, with an emphasis on strategic engagement and delivering solutions up front. Natural England also wants to emphasise the importance of high-quality applications as well as the need to reduce the level of unnecessary consultations that it receives. It can do that by signposting local planning authorities to its new impact risk zones delivery advice service.
This is an exciting and long overdue shift. I have no time to dig into the details tonight, but there are three main thrusts in my opinion. First, low-risk, routine applications must be put on what I would call autopilot so that Natural England can concentrate on planning advice work and moving on to a more strategic place. There need to be standard responses for lower-risk work, and the supplementary provisions that the Minister has outlined in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment 68 will set out how local authorities can determine these applications themselves based on criteria published by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tremendous experience of this from her time at Natural England, but I assure her that this is very low-risk stuff. My shelves are full of books called, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your Mac”, “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Work Your iPad” and “The Idiot’s Guide to Switching on Your Mobile Phone”. I am not making an insinuation about local councils, but I can see the Natural England advice being something like “The Idiot’s Guide to How to Grant Planning Permission in Local Councils for Low-Risk Applications”, and I hope the guidance will be that simple.
The second thrust is that Natural England needs to concentrate on the big strategic stuff. This is where it can make the biggest impact for nature recovery, recognising that nature and economic growth co-exist and need to thrive together. Thirdly, Natural England is keen to do much more upfront, pre-application engagement and sees the importance of securing opportunities and mitigation for nature within development policies. It needs to focus its efforts on where the opportunities are greatest as well as addressing significant environmental risks. This means having as much time as possible to advise on high-risk and high-opportunity casework. If it can take that approach now, it will secure lasting environmental outcomes and create wider economic and social benefits for communities.
I must tell noble Lords what justifies doing this upfront work. It was just before I joined, but I understand that Natural England reached out to HS2 as soon as it got the original Bill passed to say, “Come to us as soon as possible with any and all the plans you’ve got which may impact on protected sites or habitats along the route, and we’ll work on mitigation measures to head off the problems”. I understand the answer that came back was, “We are HS2; we do not need your input, so just butt out”. Then, when it was too late, HS2 came along to say that it had hit a problem with protected bats and to ask what it should do about it. It was HS2’s plan to build that £100 million tunnel, not Natural England’s, but we had to approve it, since HS2’s arrogance meant it had run out of options.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place. He might agree that we would all say that £100 million for a bat tunnel is obscene, but to HS2 it was just pocket money that it was spending. I must say to some of my noble friends that Natural England’s decision on this and other things was not an out-of-control quango doing it for the hell of it or doing it because it thought it could do it. It was following United Kingdom habitats regulations. I say United Kingdom habitats regulations because we incorporated them all into UK law. I said to Conservative Ministers at the time, “If you don’t like Natural England implementing the law, then change the law”.
Finally, nearly every official I spoke to was certain that if HS2 had involved Natural England eight years ago, the problem of the route and the bats would have been headed off and it would have solved it without that expense. That is why pre-planning engagement is so important: it speeds up planning and avoids crises arising at the last minute because organisations have found that they have hit an environmental problem. Natural England must be freed from the 15,000 irrelevant low-risk cases so that it has time to deal early on with the big strategic stuff that will make a difference and promote growth while safeguarding our biodiversity. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and it reflects well the view that there are differences of opinion on this late Government amendment, Amendment 68, around the House. It also reinforces the point that it is disappointing that at this late stage in the Bill a significant shift in policy is being introduced by this Government. This is not tidying up, this is not in response to anything that anybody raised in Committee; it is clearly something that is driven by political aims, as was made very clear in the press release that accompanied the indication of the Government’s new amendments at this stage of the Bill.
It is very disappointing that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, a large consultation by the department on statutory consultees is upcoming, and if there was going to be a detailed look at the role of Natural England as a statutory consultee, it could have fitted into that. There could have been a proper consultation with those most affected, local authorities, whereas instead it is just foisted on us at this late stage with no consultation in the meantime with the LGA. I have spoken to the LGA, so I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that she has any views from it. She was very keen to tell us what the view of Natural England was, as was the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but what are the views of those most affected, which is hard-pushed local authorities? The absence of planning advice is not going to speed up planning. They are still going to have to make the decisions. It is not going to do what the press release said, which is,
“helping to accelerate approvals for new homes and infrastructure”.
They are going to be struggling around to find the advice that they have previously had.
I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister. First, in her opening remarks, she talked about the fact that, last August, Natural England sent a letter to all local authorities telling them that there would be a cutting back in planning services. Given that Natural England already has an established modus operandi from last year, which was about cutting back in a progressive way, what is the problem since then that needs solving? Why do we need legislation given that there was a perfectly reasonable non-legislative means for Natural England to prioritise cases?
Secondly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, and looking at the wording of the amendment, the only person that Natural England has to consult in determining the statement on dealing with requests for advice is the Secretary of State. For a Labour Government—a Labour Government—to be saying that Natural England will do a consultation on something that will fundamentally change the resources available to local authorities, which are in the vanguard of protecting our countryside and building the homes we need, and the only people it is going to talk to are people in the department is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace that new Section 4A(6) just says:
“Before publishing a statement … Natural England must … consult the Secretary of State”.
It does not have to talk to local authorities, and yet they will have to live with these decisions.
I go back to my central point. I do not see why this is needed, given that a perfectly reasonable process was put in place by Natural England to streamline the advice that it gives to local authorities. It leads me to believe that there is something more lurking behind this amendment that we cannot quite see. It is absolutely wrong that a Labour Government are putting this forward without consulting the very people at the heart of our communities who are responsible for doing this.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a landowner and a housing developer. Before addressing this group of amendments, I would like to ask the Minister whether her Government have considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case that was released today. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days on Report in your Lordships’ Chamber. For the benefit of the House, the judgment found that Ramsar sites impacted by development do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the habitats regulations.
From that I have several questions. If the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next day of Report or perhaps comment in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone. Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England advice on nutrient and other neutrality, how many are due to Ramsar and how many to European designations, where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules?
The Bill, as drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. Therefore, the effect of the Bill now becomes to block housing development rather than allow it. We on these Benches will seek to amend the Bill to remove this effect. My Amendment 208 would take Clause 90 out of the Bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the Government’s intentions towards Clause 90 and Schedule 6 now changed as a result of this ruling? On these Benches, we are delighted with this ruling as it releases much-needed supply into the housing market. I hope the Government are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses. It also highlights the issue that the small nut that is being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 of this Bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around Part 3.
I turn to the amendments in this group and begin with government Amendments 68 and 262. We are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process.
Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the Minister in her response that the intent is that Natural England’s powers can be delegated only to public bodies and which bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it should say public bodies in the Bill. We will oppose the powers being given to Natural England in this Bill as they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies really is intolerable, and we will return to this later, if necessary, in my Amendment 195.
Amendment 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley is a sensible amendment that would allow for better planning of EDP requirements. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will first go through the responses to the government amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his support.
My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked why we feel this amendment is needed now. I remind noble Lords that Natural England currently receives around 22,500 town and country planning consultations every year. Many are low to medium risk and about 30% of them do not actually need Natural England’s input because they either fall outside the statutory remit under the development management procedure order or do not relate to its general purpose as set out in the NERC Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, specifically asked what problem this was trying to solve. It is mainly because, over the last decade, the volume of planning casework received by Natural England has increased by 75%. There is nothing lurking behind it—it is just the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal with. Because of this, there is less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting nature where the risks are greatest.
My noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both asked about local authorities. We are looking to work with LPAs in advance of any change coming through and work through the details of exactly how it is going to work and what it is going to mean for them, so we are involving local authorities.
Regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England will continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will include any high-risk and high-opportunity casework. In addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the development management procedure order, which is not affected by this amendment. This includes where a development is likely to affect a SSSI or would involve the loss of more than 20 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, local planning authorities are ultimately responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain unchanged.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgment in the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. We are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure the country needs but, as we move forward with the Bill we are debating today, we are clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development. On his more detailed questions, the judgment was only this morning so we need time to analyse the decision; I am sure we will be coming back to this.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously, we have discussed this previously and debated it in Committee. While I absolutely recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure her that the policy expectation is that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for a private body to take on some functions under this part. My noble friend Lady Young and others asked about examples. As I said in Committee, it could be national parks, the MMO and others as appropriate. The noble Baroness reminded us of the examples I had given earlier. This is not to do with shifting decision-making away from Natural England and has nothing to do with it not having the capacity. It is entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very important decisions. That is why we do not want to remove the possibility of it going to a private body. However, our expectation is that it would always be a public body because it would be unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body did not.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The reason for bringing the amendment back is that we do not seem to have moved on from Committee stage. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that it should be in the Bill. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely inappropriate for it to be given to a private company.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is why the delegated powers are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation. It is not just Natural England’s decision; it is subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and the use of the powers is subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient and allow her not to press her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision; it is really important that that is clear.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I know this is against the rules on Report, but I think this is such an important issue. I do not understand what the Government are saying now because the Bill is very clear. It actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I would be entirely content. That is not what the Bill says at the moment, so I am unclear as to exactly what the Minister’s last couple of sentences mean.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I was trying to clarify that it is the Secretary of State.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this and that Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
What I am saying is that any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State’s authorisation and that the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. I hope that is clear.
I will now turn briefly to Amendment 200 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would add a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England, when making development plans, of potential sites for development that may require an EDP. As we mentioned in Committee, Natural England is already required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We have also ensured that local authorities will be required to co-operate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I understand where he is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given that the Bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell
“Promotion and use of mediation etc(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 323A insert—“323B Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in relation to the following—(a) the preparation of local development plans and related evidence reports under Part 2,(b) a prospective applicant’s compliance with any requirements in respect of pre-application consultation imposed under or by virtue of sections 61W or 61Z, (c) assisting in the determination of an application for planning permission, including related planning obligations or their variation under sections 106 and 106A, and(d) any other matter related to planning that they consider appropriate.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision about—(a) the form of mediation or other ADR technique that is to be used in a particular circumstance, and(b) the procedure to be followed in any such mediation.(3) Local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1).(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) planning authorities, and(b) such other persons that they consider appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must make any guidance issued under subsection (1) publicly available.(6) The power under subsection (1) to issue guidance includes power to—(a) issue guidance that varies guidance issued under that subsection, and(b) revoke guidance issued under that subsection.(7) For the purposes of this section, “mediation” and “ADR technique” includes any means of exploring, resolving or reducing disagreement between persons involving an impartial person as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under subsection (1) within the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that guidance must be issued on the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of ADR in the planning process. It is intended to engender a culture of informal resolution of disputes, in order to reduce the risk of the delay and expense caused by litigation.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group is on the principles of planning. I speak to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to which I have added my name; I also added my name to this amendment in Committee. This amendment seeks to place mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution at the core of our planning system. It represents a vital opportunity to transform a process that is all too often adversarial and cumbersome into one that resolves disputes quickly, locally and constructively. Indeed, I might dare to say that the power of mediation has brought us together on this amendment, which otherwise might be unlikely.
As a local councillor, I have sat on a planning committee and witnessed at first hand how adversarial planning can be and how complex it is—a zero-sum game. More importantly, I have worked as a community mediator and a caseworker for a number of years, specialising in neighbour disputes. That has taught me a lot, which I continue into my politics to this day. The first thing I learned as a mediator is that the problem is never what people tell you it is.
Our current planning processes revolve around conflict, often forcing developers, residents and authorities into these zero-sum games. It can be very difficult for those involved to escape from those processes themselves. This, ultimately, can lead to long legal battles, rising costs, delayed homes, immense frustration and broken systems. These are exactly the kinds of problem that this Bill is intended—and the Government state that they want—to resolve. This amendment is here to try to offer a way forward. My wish in speaking again to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is that I really want this Government to be open to considering a large-scale trial of mediation so that adequate data can be found and the Government can make an assessment as to the true usefulness of mediation in the English planning system.
In Committee, the Minister rejected this amendment on a number of grounds. The first was that it was not new and that the Government had explored it before. That might be true, but I believe that, when it was explored before, it was not done fully and properly. Mediation is embedded in the Scottish system and has been since 1997, with updated planning guidance in 2020-21. There it is a voluntary process, and the Scottish authorities have found that it has been very useful at all stages of planning, including in complex cases and developer-community discussions.
Research conducted by the University of Strathclyde has found that 65% of mediated Scottish cases were settled successfully in 2024, saving vast amounts of money for the courts, avoiding delays and helping to get infrastructure and homes built. Equally, the Scottish Government have commissioned independent research that found that mediation, where it was used, fostered trust, reduced conflict and helped to achieve earlier agreements compared with traditional legal routes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as time is short, I will simply focus on the lifeblood of local communities: small enterprises, or SMEs as we call them. A journey of a thousand leagues starts with a single step, we are told. Equally, major corporations driving economic growth did not start as large enterprises. That is why I always seek to “think small first” in regulating, and indeed why I supported the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on planning fees. I trust that the Government will deliver on the lowest possible fees for SMEs.
My Amendment 119, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has kindly supported, seeks to build on the constructive discussions we all had with the Bill Ministers, in which they expressed their wish to support SMEs and small developments in the planning system. The fact is that such enterprises are at a disadvantage in our system. We need to do something about it and to bring about a culture change in the attitude to SMEs. It is a chilling fact that, according to the Government’s SME plan, SME housebuilders’ share of the market has declined from 39% in 1988 to 10% in 2020, yet they contribute disproportionately to local communities and local employment, helping to fill the skills gap in construction.
My amendment in Committee focused on giving new guidance to Natural England, because I want it to support smaller players and to take a more balanced view than its current remit permits. On reflection, I thought Ministers might prefer a more general duty that would give SMEs a special role in the whole planning system. This would require all involved to “have regard”—not the strongest of words—to the fact that SMEs
“may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process”,
and to “consider”, again a gentle word,
“whether such barriers can be removed or reduced”.
It is derived from a similar duty that we introduced to the Procurement Bill, in which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, were involved. This was widely welcomed by businesses and charities. In my amendment I have kept the definition of such enterprises modest to make it more acceptable—
“between one and nine residential dwellings”—
but I would be happy for the Government to amend this at Third Reading or ping-pong.
The role of SMEs in development is a serious omission from the Bill. This is bad for community cohesion and a lost opportunity for growth. The Government said in their own small business plan that accelerating the growth of SMEs could boost growth by 1% a year. Unfortunately, what we heard from the Minister in Committee does not cut the mustard. An example would be the requirement to consider the viability of development in making levy regulations. I cannot see how this would make a big difference to SMEs. The truth is that none of the considerations, nor the financial support she has mentioned, have any chance of reversing the adverse trend in SME housebuilding or changing the culture in local authorities and agencies, let alone in Marsham Street.
Unless the Minister can give an undertaking to bring forward a suitable proposal on SMEs in the planning process itself, I will want to test the opinion of the House when we reach that clause.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 119 and agree with the excellent case set out by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. My support comes from two cases in my constituency some years ago, caused by the forerunner of Natural England. I think it was the Countryside Commission at the time, and then it was the Countryside Agency, before being amalgamated into Natural England. These two cases simply demonstrate the point that my noble friend has been making. They were a couple of years apart, but the issues were the same, and they have annoyed me to this day because I was absolutely powerless to help small businesses in my constituency.
The first was on creating the Pennine Bridleway, and later a national trail alongside Hadrian’s Wall, both of which had many miles in my constituency. Some of that opened in 2002, some in 2006, and some is not opened yet, but the approval process in principle started either in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The plan was to make these national trails and encourage thousands more people to use them—no bad thing in itself, and I liked the idea. Local farmers were generally not opposed, since they thought they could get involved in providing services to the walkers and riders.
Farmers and householders along Hadrian’s Wall said that, without toilet facilities en route, their stone walls—or behind them—had become toilets. With no cafeterias for miles, sandwich wrappers and uneaten food were dumped in their fields and were a hazard to sheep. They said it would be good for them if they could convert a barn into a coffee shop or toilets, as a quid pro quo for letting thousands of people march over their land. It seemed a very good idea to me at the time to assist small farmers in this way. This was in the wilds of northern Cumbria, near the Scottish border, where some farms had more rushes than grass. It used to be called marginal land but the EU terminology is “severely disadvantaged area”. The lush land of East Anglia it is not. They need every opportunity there to make money and survive.
Farmers on the route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway also wanted to convert some barns into tack rooms, providing food and water for people and horses, and parking space for their trailers. Only a few riders would want to traverse its whole length, or at least the stretches which were open; most wanted to park up and ride a loop of about 15 miles or so. Again, that was a reasonable suggestion which I thought would benefit everyone: walker and riders, the local farmers who would have them on their land, and the environment, which would not be desecrated with rubbish. But that was not to be.
The Countryside Commission said, “Nothing to do with us”. Its job was the trails and bridleway, and it did not care about helping the rural businesses along the route. It was purely a local planning matter. To hear that from a body set up with a remit of helping rural businesses, I was appalled and angered. It would not even publish a statement suggesting to local councils that it might be a jolly good idea to support planning applications which would provide those small infrastructure developments. I approached the local councils, which said they could not comment until an official planning application was received and would not bend the rules to look favourably on them in principle.
I ended up opposing something that I thought was a good thing because of the recalcitrance of government bodies and local councils that would do absolutely nothing to help small businesses in their own patch. I may be wrong but to this day I do not think that a single farm or private building on either of those routes has been given planning permission for even a simple tearoom. That is why I support my noble friend.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 103, in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner, who I see is now in his place, on proportionality in planning. In Committee, his amendment was rejected out of hand.
This is a Bill promoted by several departments. We have spent the last hour with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, from Defra, justifying government Amendment 68 strictly on the grounds of proportionality between good governance, effective value for money and so forth. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, from the other department, that the Government cannot have it both ways. Government Amendment 68 having been pressed so hard on the positive angle of proportionality, I now challenge her to accept Amendment 103, which makes exactly the same grounds, but of course from my noble friend Lord Banner’s perspective rather than the other.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to support Amendment 69, for the reasons advanced by the noble Earl. I just want to raise one question. The amendment would provide for guidance promoting the use of mediation. I would like to know whether the expectation of that amendment, if agreed, is that mediation should become mandatory, as is really the case in much civil litigation. If it is to be mandatory, what would be the sanctions for non-compliance with a direction for mediation?
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome that question. It is not that mediation would be mandatory. I strongly believe that mediation should be a voluntary process. The idea is to have guidance to make sure it is available and consistent where it is required.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.
This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.
This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This amendment seeks to introduce statutory guidance on mediation and dispute resolution into the planning system.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his continued engagement with us on this matter since Committee. I have had a meeting with him this week on this subject. He is a passionate advocate for mediation and I appreciate the insights he has shared on this issue. I think we both want the same thing: fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system—for example, on the compulsory purchase and Section 106 agreements, where negotiating and reaching consensus is required.
However, we feel that third-party mediation would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh them with other material planning considerations. Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework.
Much of what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through national planning policy and guidance. Our National Planning Policy Framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal. On larger-scale schemes, planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist co-operation between all parties.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted the example of the way that Scotland deals with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation. Planning Circular 2/2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states that the use of mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities. We do not need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. As I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders.
Amendment 103 from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that less can be more in the planning system. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know that we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we discussed earlier.
Elsewhere, we are introducing the new nature restoration fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to preliminary environmental information within the environmental impact assessment regulations for infra- structure planning and examining regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium-sized sites.
I again reassure the noble Lord that we agree with the sentiment of this amendment to remove unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said in Committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, would provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It would create a new legal test for decision-makers that risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. It is better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we are committed to. It will be a key principle driving our new National Planning Policy Framework, which we are committed to publishing for consultation later this year.
Amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under the Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium-sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly by supporting a diverse housing market, responding to local housing needs and supporting faster build-out rates.
We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years and that the planning system has become disproportionate, contributing to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system.
The amendment would create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME-specific issues. This approach is neither necessary nor proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they have considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions. This would create a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies. It would also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges to decisions could be brought.
That said, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site thresholds working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small-site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium-site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process.
For applications within this new medium threshold, we are considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed building safety levy; exempting them from build-out transparency proposals; maintaining a 13-week statutory time period for determination; including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national scheme of delegation; ensuring that referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance that is readily available online where possible; uplifting the permission-in-principle threshold; and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.
An amendment seeking to define SMEs in an alternative way and adding further steps to the process risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This has been an interesting and, dare I say, different group of amendments. It is always important to look at principles, particularly first principles, that underline and guide what we do and why we do it. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I take her points about mediation and that we all want fewer disputes. We share all those things in common. I will go away and think about what more could be done with guidance. We want the Government to go a little bit further and support trials and rollouts to see what more can be done to better incorporate this as a tool within our planning system.
On Amendment 119, it is important that we raise these issues. The need to do more for small and medium-sized developers is widely felt among all parties across the House. I recognise what the Government have done on the site threshold paper, and it is welcome that they are looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from that.
On Amendment 103, obviously the principle of proportionality is important. Less can indeed be more. We wonder what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward.
With that, I reserve the right of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to bring back his amendment, should he wish to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for this White Paper, which is an incredibly important and wide-ranging document. It is essential that we build the skills pipeline to turn around the current stagnation in productivity and economic growth. But we also know, on all sides of the House, that this is a tough problem to crack. I read somewhere—I did not double check the data—that there have been 41 attempts to address this issue since the Labour Government were elected in 1997. As with all major reform, the challenge will lie in effective implementation. Delivering the scale of change envisaged in the White Paper will depend on clear accountability and long-term stability of decision-making. I am sure it is an issue that we will come back to in this House in the years ahead.
We are pleased to see that there are elements in the White Paper that build on the work of the previous Government. We are pleased to see a date confirmed for the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement. We hope very much that this will build a pipeline of skills at levels 4 and 5, which we know are significantly lacking in the economy. It is not clear how this change will be incentivised. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to create a pull from employers and how they will manage the financial risks to higher education institutions that, understandably, might be nervous about moving from a three-year degree model to a more modular approach.
As the Minister knows, there is a huge marketing task to be done. The pilots that we ran when in government significantly lacked demand—that is a polite way of describing it—so making people aware of these opportunities will be very important. It is also important that the Government can reassure the House that level 4 and level 5 qualifications will retain rigour and labour market currency, and not simply represent partial completion of degree programmes.
We are pleased to see the continuation of the technical excellence colleges, which build on the institutes of technology that we founded, which received significant public funds. We wish them every success. But there is limited clarity on how the network of excellent institutes of technology will be utilised within the new framework. Can the Minister confirm their role in delivering the higher technical education ambitions within the White Paper?
I spent a lot of time at the Dispatch Box arguing with Peers all around the House about the streamlining of level 3 qualifications, so I wish the Minister good luck with that. Can she clarify the sequencing of the ending of funding for BTECs and advanced general certificates and the start of the new V-levels? How confident is she that there will be the workforce to deliver this, given the significant pay gap between staff working in FE and teachers in our schools?
The vocational levels sound promising, but the timeline looks very tight. Can the Minister clarify what will happen if there is a delay? That is obviously important. The other day, the Secretary of State said in the other place that funding would be kept in place for “most existing qualifications”, as opposed to all existing qualifications, until V-levels are brought in. Can the Minister confirm whether T-levels will be extended into areas such as sports science, performing arts, catering and hospitality, and hair and beauty, where there is strong learner and employer demand?
The White Paper rightly commits to simplifying what is currently a confusing qualifications landscape. In that spirit, can the Minister confirm that, as V-levels are introduced, proprietary titles such as BTEC, City & Guilds, and Cambridge Technicals will cease, giving clarity to young people, parents and employers?
There are a number of areas where we have concerns, and perhaps that is just a question of clarification. The Government appear to have scaled back the promotion and rollout of higher technical qualifications designed to meet employer-set standards. Can the Minister clarify the current commitment to the HTQ model? Can she also clarify the details on the ability of colleges to self-certify their HTQs? Previously, IfATE signed off on the quality of courses, with significant input from employers. Without external verification, surely there is a risk that, in future, levy funds are spent on what could be, in some cases, low-quality courses. It feels like we have seen this in the university sector, particularly franchise providers, where there is not enough oversight of qualifications or standards. Similarly, can the Minister clarify the timeline for addressing the quality issues with some degrees? Our concern is that fees are going up before quality is addressed.
Turning to the introduction of a Progress 8-type measure in higher education, will the Minister outline how this will be constructed, given the different curricula in each institution? For pupils who did not pass English and maths GCSE while at secondary school, we of course welcome the additional investment to support them but are concerned that there will be a risk that some children are deemed to be unable to pass these important qualifications. Have the Government estimated how many pupils they expect will never complete their maths and English GCSE?
The White Paper is fairly silent on incentives for employers to invest more. The noble Baroness knows very well about the significant drops in employer investment in these areas. It is also silent on plans for boosting apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3, which are obviously very important, and further plans for simplifying the funding of further education. Finally, is the noble Baroness able to confirm that the employer contribution to the growth and skills levy will stay at 2%, or are there plans to increase it?
The White Paper has a very brief section on measuring impact which is mainly, if I may say, about counting outputs. How will progress and impact be measured in a really transparent way, maybe through employer engagement, learner outcomes or gains regionally in terms of skills? To say it another way, can the Minister say whether her every dream was fulfilled in this White Paper? If every measure knocked it out of the park, what would be the impact on productivity in this country?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. We share many of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised, and she quite skilfully teased those out with the questions she asked. Looking at the Statement, my immediate thought is that there is a lot of rhetoric in it, but there needs to be less rhetoric and more detail about some of the proposals. The biggest issue we face, which is not addressed, is the cultural shift in this country. Parents regard it as a successful education, quite honestly, and I have said this before, if the child or young person gets the required number of GCSEs, goes into the sixth form and goes to university. Schools lap up the number of students who go into the sixth form because they get extra funding for it, yet we know that half the pupils in our secondary schools are not academic, and we have this academic curriculum.
The other thing that surprises me in the Statement, which I think is crucial, is that young people need guidance. They need advice. They need help. They need support. I am surprised that there is no mention of careers education or careers guidance in the Statement —at this point, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect. It rightly says that
“our young people risk being left behind.”
That is absolutely right, because currently we have about one million NEETs in this country—not in education, employment or training. It talks about
“local businesses becoming more productive … and bustle returning to the high street”,
which begs the question of how we are going to do that. That is not just by quality training; there are number of other issues. Of course, the hike in national insurance did not help businesses, to be honest, and it certainly did not help high streets either.
The Statement talks about
“a muddle of confusing pathways”,
yet in some respects makes the muddle even more confusing, replacing BTECs with V-levels and cutting funding for the international baccalaureate programme in state schools. We welcome V-levels bringing flexibility, but we would rather see the phasing out of BTECs by 2027, both running in parallel during the transition so that outcomes can be compared. We know that BTECs work, because 200,000 students took them last year and 99% of universities accept them. One in five workers hold them. We need the Government to be more supportive here and look at funding streams. Why can sixth forms claim VAT, yet further education colleges cannot, for example? We support V-levels, but only if the transition from BTECs is based on evidence and if sufficient funding is provided to truly deliver a world-class vocational education.
Briefly, I am pleased about the section on universities. On the last Statement, the Minister gave us an assurance that the Government would face up to the funding crisis in universities, and they have been true to their word, but it is a bit disappointing that more money could have been available for universities had they not slapped on the levy for overseas students. That could have been an income stream that benefited the university sector.
I turn to the international baccalaureate. It sets the global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators around the world as a mark of academic excellence, and thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this cut to students’ ability to study under an internationally recognised programme?
We welcome the Government’s ambition to create a joined-up, strategic approach to education. However, the glaring omission of lifelong learning cannot be ignored. Learning does not end at 21. What steps are the Government taking to provide pathways for essential professions and deal with shortages in social work, nursing and engineering? It is important to all of us—we all have a real stake in this, the present Government and the previous Government—that we get this right and that it works. I hope that the mantra of two decades ago, “education, education, education”, is replaced by “skills, skills, skills”.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in the relatively short time left for me before we get on to other questions, I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points raised as possible. Just to reiterate, this White Paper outlines the Government’s plans to deliver a joined-up skills system that targets skills gaps and leaves no place or person behind, a specialist and prestigious FE sector with high-quality study pathways into work and a world-leading higher education sector that drives innovation and growth and delivers high quality and good value for students. It is the blueprint for delivering the Prime Minister’s bold new target for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships—by age 25.
On the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about higher technical qualifications, we will work with the Office for Students to develop new HTQ awarding powers for providers and we are reforming the process for designating higher technical qualifications to make them meet a wider range of employer and local needs. I am glad that she recognised the development of technical excellence colleges as an important way of raising standards in further education. We are outlining plans for a further 19, following the 10 construction techs, in a range of other industrial strategy areas, and techs, of course, will enable us to raise standards by developing advanced equipment, specialised staff and new curricula, all alongside industry. We will learn and build on the model of institutes of technology, although I note that they have not been as successful in developing levels 4 and 5 as I suspect noble Lords opposite wanted them to be.
On the development of V-levels, this Government have taken the decision to maintain that important vocational route for young people—a route that would have disappeared under the previous Government’s plans. In doing that, we will build on what works in current vocational qualifications but we will also make sure that these new qualifications are linked to what employers need to see in those areas, guided by national standards.
On defunding, as we said last year when we carried out the qualifications review, we believe that where there are large courses in the same area as T-levels, students will gain more by following a T-level course. But we are going back from the defunding proposals of the previous Government, even some of those in the qualifications review last year, and we will maintain funding for all large qualifications in non-T-level routes, and for medium-sized and small qualifications in T-level routes, up to the point at which V-levels are available, ensuring that the transition is as smooth as possible. In developing V-levels, we will engage with colleges, employers and, of course, awarding bodies.
On the English and maths qualification, it remains incredibly important that young people achieve that grade 4 in English and maths, and that is why we have both increased funding and been clear in our guidance that that should continue to happen in further education colleges. But there is no point in somebody keeping on taking an examination when they have not yet been able to gain the foundation necessary to succeed in that. That is why we will introduce new opportunities through level 1 qualifications for those foundations to be built on, so as to achieve success for young people rather than failure. We will invest in the further education workforce, as we already have done, and we will provide £800 million extra next year for the further education sector.
Yes, we will consider areas where we can expand T-levels.
I will probably get the opportunity to say more about higher education quality later, but we are clear that where there is bad value for public money, we will, alongside the OfS, ensure that it goes out of the system.
There is mention, by the way, of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, not least in the £1 billion of investment that this Government have put into sector skills packages.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, suggested that the Statement was rhetorical. Yes, elements of it were, but I am sure that he has also looked at the considerable amount of detail in the White Paper, and I am sure we will have many more opportunities to get into more detail on that.
Fundamentally, as the noble Lord says, what the White Paper does is to improve the status of our technical and vocational qualification routes, for young people and for older people, to ensure that we bring about a fundamental renewal of the skills system as part of our national renewal. This White Paper is a turning point, and I look forward to working through how we deliver this fundamental change, how we measure it and how this therefore leads to an improved skills system, improved opportunities for people throughout their lives, and improved growth for our economy.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome this White Paper. I think it is a turning point. It is a document of ambition and a very serious document. If it is implemented, it is a turning point—there will be no going back on some key issues. But the devil really is in the detail and, although it is an ambitious document, I just want to press the Minister on the BTECs and the V-level qualifications because that is the biggest change. If they do not work, this will not be a successful White Paper.
Did I hear the Minister say that there will be no gap between the defunding of the successful BTECs and the introduction of the V-levels, even if that is later than anticipated in the White Paper, which may very well be the case? A query I have in my mind is: if the content of the BTEC is successful now with both employers and learners, will that content be reclassified as a V-level or will it cease to exist?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To reiterate, what we have said is that where there is a T-level in place, we will, as we said we would in the qualifications review that we did last year, defund a large qualification that sits alongside it because all the evidence is that students get through T-levels—and the placements, for example, that go alongside T-levels—a better chance of progression. But, yes, in all other areas we will maintain existing qualifications up to the point that a V-level is in place to replace them. We will want V-levels to build on what is good about current vocational qualifications, including BTECs, and that is why we will engage, through our advisory group, with college principals, the awarding organisations and others. Of course, we have issued a consultation document on the development of V-levels and the other important reforms in post-16 qualifications, which I encourage not just noble Lords but anybody else who is interested in this to contribute to.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this is certainly an important document. The first thing I noticed about it, though, was that it is being fronted by DSIT but not DCMS, which does not seem to be involved at all—when the creative industries are such an important aspect of the industrial strategy, and in particular the many skill sets that will be needed to drive these industries. Those skills will have their own pathways. So I ask the Minister: what thought has been given to vocational pathways for those who wish to work in the creative industries?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There will be opportunities through V-levels for those interested in vocational routes into the creative industries. There will be opportunities through some of the sector skills packages—not least, for example, in the area of digital—to support the creative industries. There is, of course, a sector skills plan as part of the creative industries element of the Government’s industrial strategy.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the increase in fees for students, as that sets the resources available for the education of students without affecting the monthly repayments that graduates subsequently make. However, the international student levy will take away quite a bit of that resource, so does the Minister agree that the real resource available for educating students overall will continue to fall? Does she accept that that cannot carry on indefinitely?
I also welcome the recognition in the White Paper that there is no viable alternative to the fees and loans system that we have now had for over 20 years. But is the Minister concerned that there are still misunderstandings and misplaced anxieties that it is somehow a fixed amount of debt like a credit card debt or stops you getting a mortgage? If anything, those concerns appear to be increasing. Will the DfE energetically commit to explaining to young people the realities of how the system works?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s first point, no, I do not accept that an index-linked increase in tuition fees—a certainty of funding that no other public or private sector organisations, or very few, could have committed to them—will leave universities worse off. That is notwithstanding this Government’s decision that in order to reinstate the maintenance grants removed by the last Government we will use a levy on international students to reintroduce targeted maintenance grants for students. Of course, asking students to invest in their education is right, alongside government investment, but we need to make sure that that world-leading higher education system is open to all who can benefit from it and that we close the gap in access, which has persisted for too long.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Government have stated, and the Minister has repeated, the concentration on English and maths. They have also talked about special educational needs and I once again declare my interests: I am president of the British Dyslexia Association—whose event in the Commons I am missing at the moment—and chairman of Microlink plc, which does assistive tech packages.
On special educational needs—dyscalculia, for example—I met somebody the other day whose brother had failed the maths component of an apprenticeship for the 15th time. Can we make sure that, when we look at the qualifications, if we are going to bring everybody into the skill set, everybody is allowed to pass, either by changing the qualification or allowing assistive technology to be used? This does not happen in universities, which can make their own rules, but for the higher education sector—levels up to five—it is essential that we have that guidance from the Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Quite often in further education, there is very good special educational needs provision, which we will learn from. We will also ensure, as part of our special educational needs reform, that further education is included as a part of that. However, the whole point about the reform in English and maths qualifications—particularly the introduction of a new qualification that will enable students to demonstrate and build on their foundations—is to support more young people to pass. The noble Lord will also know that we have changed the conditions for adult apprenticeships so that it is no longer necessary to get a separate English or maths qualification in order to get an adult apprenticeship.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, while I associate myself with the comments on the IB from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I want to focus on the issue of NEETs. The White Paper seeks to address the growing problem of NEETs with pre-NEET targeted support in schools, the youth guarantee and short courses funded by the growth and skills levy, and the lifelong learning entitlement. Can the Minister tell us how these short courses will consolidate into the high-quality apprenticeships that this vulnerable group need if they are to prosper in the labour market?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for recognising the range of reform necessary to tackle this enormously worrying problem of young people who are neither learning nor earning. In order to prevent that in the first place, as he identifies, we will have higher expectations on schools to ensure suitable destinations for young people. We will look at the ways in which we can ensure that every young person has a place in a college and is auto-enrolled if necessary. We will then, through, for example, the Chancellor’s announcement of a backstop youth guarantee work placement for young people on universal credit who have been out of work for 18 months, make sure that people no longer start their working life without the work or training that can lead them to succeed.
When it comes to short courses, this is part of our reform of the apprenticeship levy into a much more flexible growth and skills levy, which, alongside short courses, also introduces foundation apprenticeships. These will be a very important way in which young people can enter the workforce and will have an important impact on NEETs as well.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject and we want to get through as many questions as we can.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s and chairman of FutureLearn. I welcome the Statement, particularly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, the bold decision to index fees with inflation—it is absolutely the right thing to do after a decade of real-terms freezes. However, I regret the missed opportunity to fix some of the big problems with the lifelong learning entitlement and the decision to take away with the other hand what the Government have just given on the fees front. Can the Minister please confirm the scope of the proposed tax on international tuition fees? Does it include, for example, online provision and transnational education—that is, courses taken by students from British universities while they are studying in other countries? Given that the Government have acknowledged that they do not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause to rollout of this tax or, better still, shelve it altogether?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I explained to the noble Lord’s colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I do not think it is true to say that there is not an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international student levy at the point of the Budget.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
I welcome also the ambitious nature of the White Paper, but can the Minister respond to how the strategy will ensure that creative industries and crafts are seen as legitimate skill sectors on an equal footing with engineering, manufacturing and industrial bodies? Given that many creative and craft roles are bespoke, freelance or project-based, how does the strategy accommodate non-standard employment and income models in training and qualifications? How will successful craft and creative routes be measured and how will this compare with other sectors?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are a lot of questions in the noble Lord’s question, most of which I will have to respond to in writing. I reassure him that, in the sorts of crafts he talked about, we maintain a considerable number of apprenticeship standards that can be used by employers to take on apprentices and continue those sorts of important crafts.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I want to probe the issue of franchising in the higher education sector. I am delighted to see the Government take action, but, as the Minister will be aware, there is some anxiety that, by requiring only the largest providers to register, we may miss some of the bad actors in this area. Will the Government keep the case for universal basic registration of all providers under review?
Secondly, as the Minister is aware, there have been excess profits made. Can she assure us that the department will be monitoring these returns, to mitigate the profiteering with public money and tackle the inadequate teaching that there has been for some students involved in this sector? Finally, will she keep under review the risks of keeping the student loan book open to high-risk providers in this area?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that, over recent years, the doubling of the effective subcontracting of university education through franchising has led to concerns around the quality for students and the value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we will take action to register providers of franchised provision and we will strengthen the ability of the Office for Students to tackle poor provision where it is found.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on NEETs and funding for them. One of the issues about NEETs is the “not known” figure. We might know the young people who are not in employment, education or training, but often there is a cohort who are not known, and that is where investment in information, advice, guidance and youth work will be essential.
I have two questions for the Minister about lifelong learning. There is a glaring omission from the Statement, and that is post-21 apprenticeships. Lifelong learning does not end at 21, and I would like the Government to look again at the cuts being made to those apprenticeships in the health sector, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the assessment of the cut to the international baccalaureate, and what impact that will have on transnational students, particularly those who want to study abroad as well.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, there is an increase in the number of apprenticeships that have started under this Government. Secondly, on the issue of the international baccalaureate, colleges and schools will continue to receive funding to provide courses, including the international baccalaureate. What they will not receive is the additional top-up that they have for the international baccalaureate, because this Government have made the decision to focus that on maths and STEM subjects, where people take larger numbers of courses. Prioritising those areas is a legitimate decision. Where the IB is being taught, there will be transitional support as the top-up is removed.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, the White Paper places heavy emphasis on modularity and credit transfer as mechanisms to improve post-16 education. Has the Minister taken full account of the evaluation of the previous attempt, the qualifications and credit framework, brought in in 2008 and scrapped in 2015, and all the lessons that this should have taught us about the risks and important requirements for such a system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness was welcoming the development of a more modular approach, supported through the delivery of the lifelong learning entitlement. Of course, we will want to look carefully at previous experiences, but we have a big opportunity here to increase both the prevalence of students who are able to go through a pathway to level 4 and 5 courses and the willingness of higher education institutions to work with further education to promote the possibility of that happening. As I say, we will learn from previous experiences in doing that.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, alignment with the industrial strategy is vital, and I am really pleased to see that the White Paper is taking a national view of skills in target sectors. It is good news that sector skills packages with significant investment attached have been agreed for construction, TechFirst, engineering and defence.
As has been said, there are also shortages in the creative industries. I therefore press my noble friend the Minister: does she agree that the development and agreement of a sector skills plan and package for and with the creative industries—working with DfE, DCMS and DSIT—is a priority and needs to be developed at pace?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As my noble friend knows, there is a sector skills plan that goes alongside the creative industries’ inclusion in the industrial strategy. Of course, it is already the case that among the sector skills packages—for example, the digital package, with £187 million behind it—we will be developing important skills for the creative industry. As well as the sector skills plan, jobs plans will be developed in each of the areas, and I am sure my noble friend will maintain her pressure to make sure that this makes the difference to skills in the creative industries that I know she wants to see.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on the reality of student debt, for the cohort that started to be liable for paying off debt in April 2025, the average debt was £53,000. In the government stats for students starting in 2024-25, it is expected that about 56% of full-time undergraduates will repay in full, which of course means that 44% of those students will spend 40 years paying off a loan they will never finish paying off. Can the Minister tell me, either now or in writing, what these increases in fees will do to those two figures?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness has identified the very different nature of student loan provision from an ordinary form of borrowing. What a student repays is dependent neither on the size of the debt nor on the interest rate; it is dependent on the student’s level of income once they are working. The noble Baroness can shake her head, but that is the reality of the way the system is designed. Therefore, there is both a student contribution and, in many ways, a taxpayer contribution to ensuring that there is no upfront cost to students going to university. The noble Lord makes an important point that we need to clarify the nature of the student loan system, in order that we do not discourage young people from going to university.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a working teacher. I very much welcome this wonderfully optimistic White Paper and its positively Churchillian language. At one point, it says that
“we are improving careers advice in schools … and introducing 2 weeks’ worth of work experience throughout a young person’s secondary education”.
The Gatsby Foundation’s Ghost of Provisions Past talks about the difficulty of securing meaningful work placements. When schools’ biggest complaint is that T-levels are incredibly difficult to teach because you cannot get meaningful work placements, how do the Government see this working?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the big advantages of T-levels is that students are able to gain a 45-day work placement alongside their studies. T-level students continuously tell me that this is what they find most satisfying about doing a T-level. Yes, there is a challenge to make sure that those are of a high quality, but that is why, through our T-level ambassadors and through a very good meeting I had just last week with employers, we are continuing to work to make sure that employers provide those placements. They are of benefit not only to the students but to the employers themselves, who often find the workers of the future in those placements.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-II(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (22 Oct 2025)
22:07 - Division on Amendment 73 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 73 disagreed.
22:18 - Division on Amendment 74 - Ayes: 84 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 74 disagreed.
“Property flood resilience measures: planning permission(1) Planning permission for the building of new homes at higher risk of flooding can only be granted if property flood resilience measures are implemented as part of the construction.(2) For the purposes of implementing subsection (1) and within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes at higher risk of flooding.(3) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—(a) raised electrical sockets;(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;(c) airbrick covers;(d) resilient wall plaster;(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 70 and 81. I also say in passing how appealing I find the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There was a much-ignored review by Anna Walker on water efficiency, and the amendments that the noble Baroness has proposed encapsulate the recommendations, so I look forward to hearing her and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, speak to them.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for supporting both these amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for supporting Amendment 70. These amendments are flip sides of the same coin. The Government have a choice. If they are going to build on flood plains, particularly on the most hazardous, the riskiest and the most prone to flooding, they must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures, as I have set out in Amendment 70. These are very practical: raised electrical sockets and non-return valves, among other specifications that I have set out.
In fact, I am sure that many of these could be introduced through building regulations, so would take the form of secondary legislation. I do not believe that we necessarily need to have the detail. But I would like the Government either to make a commitment to increasing property flood resilience measures where we are building on functional flood plains or to desist from building on functional flood plains completely.
When I tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 81 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—now Act— I was very encouraged to have the support of the then Opposition for the proposition now contained in Amendment 81, so I hope that this support can be repeated and that the Government will now support the contents of that amendment. It is very clear. It just seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on flood plains or in areas at a high risk of flooding.
In particular, I have focused on zones 3a and 3b. Why is that important? Some 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding and this will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes, by 2050. If the Government continue that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in higher-risk flood areas. Perhaps the core reason it is inappropriate to build on flood plains which are zone 3a or 3b is that, as we know, since the Flood Re scheme came into effect, any house built on a flood plain since 2009 will not be insured under the scheme. They may be able to have insurance, but it will be very expensive indeed. It seems mind-boggling that we would even consider building on those most at-risk flood plains. If the Government persist with their desire to build on these particular flood plains then I am asking that we make them resilient through these measures.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as noted in the register as a non-executive director of NatCap Research. This declaration is particularly appropriate as I stand to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in bringing back this sensible amendment—indeed, I support all the amendments in this group—because this company, along with many others, provides a scientific evidence base for nature and climate-based risks for companies that are concerned about the changing environmental landscape in which they find themselves, not least because of the costs to their businesses, stocks and shares, and the bottom line if they do not bring in mitigation measures.
I am therefore struggling to understand why the Government feel unable to support such a sensible amendment, which would ensure the same sort of mitigation approach for individual homeowners, especially those in the lower socioeconomic bands who may not be able to afford the high costs of flood risk or have any insurance. We must acknowledge that flood risk is real. We hear many examples, and I could give more— I will not, because of time. It is a rapidly increasing risk. It is not something that might happen; it is something that will happen, and we are seeing yearly changes occurring now. What is being suggested here are simple and low-cost measures that can be taken by developers to ensure that the homes they sell in areas of higher flood risk are future-proofed.
In Committee, the Minister responded that:
“Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1024.]
What happens when designers decide not to follow this and the burden of repairing homes damaged by flooding falls to the owners and their insurers? Strengthening planning rules to encourage low-cost property resilience measures, such as those proposed in this amendment, means that the risk to individual homeowners can be reduced from the outset, and the costs of flooding—not just financial but to mental well- being—can be avoided.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken, demonstrating the breadth of support for this set of amendments around the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, to paraphrase, this is a common-sense set of measures which are not big-P “political” at all—it just something that obviously needs to be done.
I am speaking to Amendments 70 and 81, to which I attached my name, and for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who tabled Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B. Briefly, on the first two, we have to set the context. A week ago, the Committee on Climate Change told the Government that we have to be preparing for 2 degrees of warming by 2050. Even more critically perhaps, in the context of this Bill, the Government and the country have not yet adapted to the levels of warming that we already have.
As in so many other areas—not just flooding but heat and cold—we are building homes that immediately need to be retrofitted, or homes that are setting people up for months, if not years, of misery. If a home was flooded and we had the kind of measures proposed by Amendment 70, it would be possible to clean the home up and, potentially, for people to move back in quite quickly. Without those measures, there are issues around the cost of insurance and months or even years of misery before there is any way that the home is occupiable again. We should not be building homes in that condition, and where homes are being retrofitted it should be to prepare them for that.
Those are my views on Amendments 70 and 81. I spoke extensively in Committee on Amendment 81, so I shall just repeat: the flood plain is not beside the river; the flood plain is part of the river.
My noble friend’s amendments are about the other side of this issue. They do not deal with the flood-water rushing down the river, the surface water that is rushing off the hard surfaces that is so typical of many areas, or the impounded soils that reflect so much of our land management now. This is saying that we should catch that water and use it in the right kind of way. It is talking about having infrastructure systems that have sustainable harvesting—we talked a lot about water butts in Committee—in order to distribute fit-for-purpose water among residents. It makes no sense at all that we still use massive quantities of expensive—in both financial and energy terms—treated drinking water for purposes where we do not need anything like that quality.
These amendments are also about reducing costs. We have a cost of living crisis, so if we can use free water rather than water that we have to pay for, that would be a win-win all round. Similarly, Amendment 120 is about water efficiency and making sure that the design minimises the amount of water use. These are all practical things and it is hard to see any reason why anyone could argue that they should not be in the Bill.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests, particularly that I chair a company that advises people on sustainability, and water is central to that.
I want to encourage the Government to move on this subject. I hope that they will allow me to do so by pointing out that the previous Government still have to explain how they managed to get rid of the regulations that would have meant that, instead of building 1.5 million homes that are not fit for the future and that have to be retrofitted, we reduced the opportunities to make our building code insist that, when people sell a house, it is fit for the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for the present Government to show that they have changed that way of looking at things and I am very surprised that they have not done so on this central issue of water.
We know what will happen. There are not many things in life that are certain, but one is that we will have too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times of the year. Therefore, I wonder why the Government have not jumped up to say how good these amendments are and that this is exactly what we should have. I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I agree with her comment that this is obvious: this is what we should be doing and there should not be any argument about it. So why are we not doing it?
When I was chairman of the Climate Change Committee, one of the problems we faced was that the adaptation side did not have the same statutory role that the mitigation part had. There is no doubt that, historically, we have not adapted fast enough, so we need to adapt very much faster.
I say to the Minister: if we do not start putting right the new houses, when we have such a long history of old houses that will have to be done, all we will do is build a greater problem for ourselves and our children, and that is unacceptable. It is much more unacceptable for the Government to say that designers “may” use the best advice. The problem is that, if they do not use the best advice, people will sell houses to others who will have to pay the cost of retrofitting. The housebuilders are therefore making profits by taking the money and not building houses that are suitable. It is the duty of the Government to insist that the standards are such that, when you buy a house, you can rely—at least for some reasonable time—on it being proper and fit for the future.
I hope that the Minister will be extremely generous in her acceptance of these amendments and, if not, that she will promise to come back with amendments that will do what—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—everybody needs and knows needs to be done.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Willis, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, for resuming this all-important discussion we held in Committee. Indeed, many of the amendments aim to define whether the Bill meets the climate reality of what is happening today or continues to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Amendment 70 strengthens the requirement that planning decisions consider cumulative flood risk. Too many developments are still approved on already saturated land, leaving new residents vulnerable and the taxpayer to pick up the cost of recurring floods. As our colleague in the Commons, Gideon Amos, argued:
“Nobody should have to deal with that raw sewage coming into their home and garden”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/25; col. 416WH.]
when flood-waters surge. However, this remains a lived experience for thousands today, because sustainable drainage rules have not been made mandatory. Amendment 70 ensures that flood plain development decisions properly account for these realities.
Amendment 81 would require local plans to align with catchment-wide flood mitigation strategies. That is long overdue. After all, flooding has no respect for, or understanding of, council boundaries, so planning policies must be equally joined up to match that. The amendment would prevent the patchwork approach that critics have warned has left entire communities at risk.
Amendment 86 focuses on sustainable drainage systems —SUDS—echoing the unfulfilled recommendations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of the Pitt Review from 2008; and on our own Benches there is a long-standing call to commence Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. These systems manage rainfall where it lands, reduce sewage overload and help alleviate combined sewer overflows, reducing the unacceptable discharge of sewage which has been witnessed so often in flood events.
Amendments 120 and 120A shift focus from drainage to water efficiency and the long-term supply. They would require the Secretary of State to issue national guidance promoting water reuse, rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and distributed storage at development scale. These are pragmatic, tried and tested approaches to reducing both flooding and water scarcity—two sides of the same crisis which increasingly confronts so many of our UK communities.
Taken together, all these amendments turn abstract sustainability pledges into enforceable planning duties, at a time when the Government’s own reviews have concluded that the current policy is simply not working. We on these Benches believe that these fixes are essential, not optional. Our planning system must no longer treat flooding as an afterthought but as a central test of responsible design. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these very useful amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue, which impacts far too many households in this country and which, as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more.
New housing built on flood plains since 2009 is not able to be reinsured under Flood Re, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case. Her Amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on flood plains entirely. It seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price, and so we support this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes strong points in Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource, and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible. I will welcome any comments from the Minister that show what the Government are already doing and plan to do to address these matters. However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
I will first address Amendments 70 and 81, concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system. They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The Government treat these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We are aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings—so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender; of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate; and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.
Amendment 70 seeks to require property flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk. As has been made clear in previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House. In support of this, building regulations already promote flood-resilient construction in flood-prone areas through approved document C, while ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens.
Amendment 81 seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in flood zone 3. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas such as Hull and central London, which, although within flood zone 3, are protected by robust engineered flood defences. Such a blanket ban would prevent development coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safeguards, directing development away from the most flood-prone areas, including flood plains, and makes it clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided.
Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted in functional flood plains—flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime, with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear: in 2024-25, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time.
Finally, I highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a 10-year period and unlocking further investment from public, private and charitable sources.
Amendments 86, 120, 121A and 121B were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am sorry that she is not in her place because it would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the Chamber. The amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, concern sustainable water management and draw attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The Government fully acknowledge the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.
To address that issue, in September the Government launched a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the Building Regulations 2010. This will ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water-stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Reuse of grey water or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration, as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health incident. In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December 2024, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage but helps regulate flow rates from sites.
In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through Amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case-by-case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one-size-fits-all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and home owners, and may slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.
On Amendment 120, planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations. Duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements, could impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities.
On Amendment 121A, planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments, while water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process. We should not duplicate existing planning guidance and building control processes.
Regarding Amendment 121B, the Government support sustainable water management and water efficiency and are already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and wastewater pressures on growth where they are needed—for example, through the current consultation on Building Regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems in new development. In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater.
The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees such as the Environment Agency and sewerage and water undertakers when developing local plans is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy-making authorities and water and sewerage companies. Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I therefore kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke in favour of my amendment, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Deben. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister’s response because, actually, she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed. I hope that, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Deben, the Minister might agree to come back with amendments in her own name at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle. (3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for lending his support, and his considerable knowledge and expertise, to Amendment 71. In moving Amendment 71, I will also speak to Amendment 82.
Amendment 82 is a consequential amendment, which would follow on from Amendment 71 if that amendment finds favour with the Government and your Lordships. I draw particular attention to the part of my amendment that says that a
“local authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions”
for a
“business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development”.
This goes to the argument set out in Amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a statutory basis.
When I brought forward this issue in the Committee debate, the Minister replied that she felt it was already in the planning framework and that we did not need a statutory footing. I thank her for having a meeting with me in which we briefly touched on the agent of change principle. I draw her attention to the excellent letter from the Music Venue Trust, in which it expressed its concern about the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. As many noble Lords will be aware—I spent so longer preparing for my professional qualifications that I never experienced being a raver, but perhaps it is not too late—of the 366 small music venues in which Ed Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed. Of the 34 venues in which Oasis played to launch its members’ careers, only 11 remain. The figures speak for themselves.
One concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they are not joined up. The Home Office, which is responsible for licensing, issued updated Section 182 guidance in February, which it went on to say should not be too onerous. I repeat that that guidance is not statutory. The Department of Business and Trade’s licensing task force,
“made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government”,
published its policy paper report to government for consideration on 31 July 2025, updated on 14 August 2025, calling for reform and wide-ranging proposals, titled, Licensing Policy Sprint: Joint Industry and HM Government Taskforce Report—“sprint” is an odd word to use but is apparently the expression being used—recommendation 10 of which was to
“Make the agent of change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions”.
Then, of course, we have the Treasury which we understand is important in moving this Bill at pace through both Houses in order that it can be on the statute book as soon as possible. We also have the Department for Business and Trade policy paper.
If the Minister is responsible for planning law; if the Government are hoping to have growth, and if we are trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, what is the status of the policy? We were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the ad hoc committee of this House on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. She was firmly of the view, as are all those like-minded practitioners, that where the agent of change is already embedded in the Section 182 guidance, following the 2003 Act, this needs to be put on a strong, statutory basis. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I support Amendment 82 as well.
First, I briefly pay tribute to those who have argued for the agent of change principle for much longer than I have, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Spellar, among others—some of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out in Committee, are sadly no longer with us. I am not going to repeat the arguments for the agent of change principle that I made then. Suffice it to say, as I have been making clear, it has been widely supported on a cross-party basis across the whole of Parliament. It has the backing of the music industry, in particular many household names including Paul McCartney. I thank UK Music and the Music Venue Trust among others for their briefings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said in Committee, the committee led by the noble Baroness looking at the 2003 licensing legislation was delighted—that was the word it used—that the then Government agreed with it. However, experience has since then proved—and it is now widely understood—that the guidance that has been in place is simply not enough. It is not working.
My main point is to take issue with the Minister’s statement in Committee that embedding these principles in law
“risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1031.]
In disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust says in response to that statement by the Minister. It states:
“In terms of legal challenges, we believe the opposite. The Music Venue Trust mostly makes planning objections because developers do not have to abide by agent of change, and therefore do not. If they had to abide from the off, we think this would greatly reduce the number of objections we would put in … in cases where objections did have to be placed, they would be resolved much more quickly because the objector would have legislation to point to, which would empower the local authority to respond emphatically”.
The Music Venue Trust points in particular to the significant distinction between Scotland, where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward and open; in England, it is characterised by avoidance and prevarication.
I want to make just a couple of other points. First, the Government’s consultation that is currently out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent of change is legislated for to create the certainty which is now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my noble friend Lord Freyberg referenced earlier today and which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the current concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment, I hope the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.
Finally, this is an important amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wished to take it to a vote, I would certainly support her.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, live music events and things like that improve people’s lives and the quality of life. You are going down there. You may annoy one or two people, but most people will benefit from them. They are an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something that this House should be taking seriously.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who have expressed their support for this amendment as well as to colleagues in another place who raised similar arguments when the Bill was considered there, not least Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place.
As noble Lords have said, these venues are vital parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with excitement to the musicians, artists and talented cultural figures of the future. They are also vital components in building not just houses and housing estates but communities where people want to live with things to do, things that bring joy to their lives. If the Government want the communities that are being built, with the commendable focus on new building that they have, to be vital living and attractive places, it is important that we encourage space for those who are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We have also seen in the regeneration of coastal communities and many other places how important it is to have those important bits of cultural infrastructure to help revitalise local areas.
Like others, I commend the work of the Music Venue Trust in this regard. It has campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at grass-roots level. My noble friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and Oasis, whose careers were built on these grass-roots venues. I would like to mention Sam Fender, who, like me, hails from North Shields and last week won the Mercury Music Prize and was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many of the artists that we like and enjoy today would not be here were it not for those grass-roots venues.
The Music Venue Trust has pointed out how many venues we are losing through all the many challenges. Some 43% of live music grass-roots venues did not make a profit last year. They operate on very tiny margins. There are obviously contending with the rise in national insurance contributions that the Government have set, and last year’s Budget cut rate relief from 75% to 40%, adding a £7 million tax burden on them. Anything we can do to make it easier for the number of grass-roots music venues and bits of cultural infrastructure to grow rather than diminish is worth supporting, and I add my voice in support of those who have spoken up for this amendment.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lord Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long-standing issue and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities. It concerns fairness and foresight in the planning system, ensuring that when new homes are built near established venues and facilities, the newcomers, not those already there, bear the responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts.
The crisis facing grass-roots music venues is now acute. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, according to the Music Venue Trust, the UK lost one grass-roots music venue every fortnight in 2024 and almost half of them—43.8%—now operate at a loss, with a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of 16% of all such venues in 2023, with 125 spaces for live music gone in a single year. The pattern is sadly familiar. A venue thrives for decades, new flats are built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic Night & Day Cafe in Manchester and the Ministry of Sound in London have fought costly, protracted battles simply to continue existing.
The agent of change principle is meant to prevent exactly this. After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue Trust and supported, as my noble friend said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno, and many others, it was finally incorporated into the national policy framework in 2018, yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short. Why is that? It is because guidance alone cannot override statutory duties under environmental health law. Local authorities must still investigate noise complaints and issue abatement notices, even when the source of that noise long predates the new development. The principle exists in spirit but lacks legal force.
This amendment would put that right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments to mitigate the impact of the schemes on existing venues and, crucially, requires decision-makers to consider chronology. Who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. This is not only about nightclubs or music venues; the same logic protects churches from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise and sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed, it protects any established community use threatened by incompatible new development. This is a modest but essential reform that will help stem the loss of venues that make our towns and cities vibrant and give local authorities the clarity they need to balance growth with cultural sustainability. I urge the Government to support it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extraordinarily brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has explained explicitly what this is about and why it is desperately needed. I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it and look forward to the Minister, with equal passion, agreeing to it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am going to try to be brief, but I am afraid I am going to be beaten by the Liberal Democrats—just occasionally one has to accept this. I offer our support for Amendments 71 and 82, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you are the one bringing change, you should be responsible for managing its impact. Yet, time and again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in the live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threatened or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation and proper regard to the context within which they are being introduced. If you build a house on the edge of a cricket pitch, do not be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden.
The reality is that guidance, however well intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold the agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to a licensing regime we would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures. We on these Benches are pleased to support this principle and hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving it a clear statutory footing. I ask the Minister for an assurance that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I will have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue of Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my house, and this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day-long festival for local bands including, I hope, some of the successors to Oasis—we never know. I can hear and enjoy both of these from my house, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country but makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well. I say that to show that I understand the issue here and the Government share the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long-established businesses in their local area, be they music or other cultural venues.
The agent of change principle is embedded into the planning system. Where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change to put suitable mitigation in place, whether that is engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy Framework and local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision.
We are exploring how we can make the agent of change policy in planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision-making, which we will consult on this year. We have recently launched a call for evidence, which seeks views on how we can better apply the principle in licensing. This will reduce inconsistent decisions, while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Why will the Government not make it statutory? This is a very simple question.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is very seldom I am lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by that response to this short debate. I am grateful to all those who spoke in support of my amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, expressed the considerable cost that is incurred by those who have to take mitigation measures; the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, set out why it is currently not working. To repeat what he said, it cannot override the noise abatement laws. That is why I think that we are failing both developers and residents at this time. I do not believe we are giving the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. That is precisely what Sarah Clover, who was the expert specialist adviser to the committee looking at the Licensing Act 2003, has pointed out on successive occasions. So, while I will not press to a vote and test the opinion of the House at this stage, I reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.
Lord Best
“Delivery of affordable housing(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for ensuring that when planning permission is granted subject to requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes on the relevant site, such requirements are fully implemented.(2) The requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes referred to in subsection (1) shall be satisfied only if the percentage of the total housing constructed let as social rent housing exceeds the percentage set out in the authority’s affordable housing threshold or twenty per cent, whichever is higher.(3) In subsection (2) “social rent housing” has the meaning given in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 together with paragraph 4 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023, as modified by paragraph 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered where this is the subject of planning consent, and the proportion of social rent housing is at least 20 per cent.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 72, which addresses the issue of affordable housing delivery. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, wanted to add his name to this amendment. I declare interests as vice-president of the LGA and the Town and Country Planning Association, honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I pay tribute to Shelter for championing this amendment.
The amendment introduces a new clause providing for regulations to ensure that affordable housing actually gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. In Committee, I noted the problem—only too familiar for many of us—that housebuilders agree to provide a quota of affordable homes for local people, but these homes fail to materialise in the developments that actually get built. The housebuilders back out of delivering some or all of the affordable homes they promised, with the excuse of “changed viability”. They say they have encountered unexpected problems, choosing from a long list of possibilities, from increased interest rates to unexpected site conditions. They claim it is no longer possible for them to make a clear profit of 20% or more, and it is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit, despite that having been a condition of planning permission.
The Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities to handle but, as a report from the National Audit Office set out in June this year, negotiations between local planning departments and well-resourced developers are hopelessly unbalanced, with the latter employing expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. Cash-strapped councils are unwilling to fight expensive legal battles and feel obliged to give in.
This amendment would bolster the position of the planners by ending the arguments and making the agreed affordable housing element non-negotiable. It aims to ensure that developers actually deliver the affordable homes that were a fundamental reason for planning consent being granted in the first place. The amendment adds a safety net by obliging the house- builder to provide a minimum of 20% of new homes in relevant developments to be for social rent, or the percentage set out in the local authority’s policy framework—the local plan, where it has one—if that is higher. Importantly, the definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard. Although planners may also require some other forms of affordable housing, such as shared ownership and near-market renting, the baseline of no less than 20% for the all-important social rented housing is secured by this amendment.
The 20% minimum for social rent is also a figure recommended by the New Towns Taskforce, which reported last month. Its report recommends a total of 40% for all the various kinds of affordable housing put together, with at least half of that—20%—for social rent. This important requirement could be applied not just to new towns but to all major developments; this amendment provides for that outcome. Nearly half the nation’s current programme of affordable homes comes from these planning obligations on the house- builders but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, noted in Committee, the CPRE has found that, despite agreements by the housebuilders to produce an average of 34% of relevant developments as affordable housing, the actual figure has turned out to be just 18%.
Shelter’s research has also shown that, in relation to the core social rent product, rather than the more upmarket versions of affordable housing, over the last 20 years less than 3% of developers’ housebuilding has been for social rent. This is despite the fact that, in most parts of the country, only the social rent accommodation is within the means of households in the lower half of income distribution.
The constant reneging by housebuilders on the contributions they agreed to make at the outset makes this amendment an urgent one. Indeed, I wonder whether it is worth all the time, money and effort to achieve so many new homes if so few of them can meet the acute needs of those suffering most from the nation’s housing shortages. Instead, enforcement of an obligation that delivers at least 20% social rented housing would substantially enhance the value to the nation of building 1.5 million homes by 2030. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment, at least in principle, and I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Best has given an empirical and quantitative justification for this amendment, which I support, and I will not repeat what he said. What I will say, however, is what social rent housing does and why it is a necessity.
It is a living instrument that improves our society in many ways. It creates the opportunity for stability for young families, and for continuing education for young people in those families. It also creates loyalty to the town where they live, and a history that is developed into the future by those who live in social housing. These days we often hear people commenting on the fact that they are the first person who went to university in their family. Many of those people went to university because they lived in social rent housing with the stability that enabled them, with the support of their parents, of course, to be educated to go to university. I believe that in this Parliament there are many people who fall into that category. This is a living instrument that we are trying to create—a system of social rent housing that produces the growth that creates the flowers of our society, or at least many of them, and gives our society a future we can be proud of.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carlile, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who is unable to be here this evening—she has been got by the lurgy that everyone is coming down with. I will make some of the arguments that my noble friend would have made.
At its core, this is about trust between developers, local authorities and communities to deliver what the developers have said they would. Does it not make your blood boil to hear and learn how often social housing has been promised and how often it has failed to be delivered? Research from Shelter shows that, in some parts of England, as many as 40% of the affordable homes initially promised are never delivered. The Local Government Association has estimated that, over the past decade alone, more than 100,000 affordable homes have been lost because of renegotiations and that absolute panto villain, the viability assessment, which is used and prayed in aid to stop the delivery of social homes for rent, which are so critical and important to society.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would bring much-needed transparency and restore faith in a promise that has been broken again and again over successive Governments. It would give councils the confidence that when they negotiate for affordable homes, the homes will actually materialise.
I know it is late, but if the noble Lord, Lord Best, moves to a vote, we will be there with him, and I am very hopeful that the Conservative Benches will join him as well. This is an absolute scandal that has gone on for too long. We need to restrict developers to deliver on their promise of social homes for rent.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise for gazumping the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. For the record, I am always happy to take my name off amendments in a case where we can demonstrate political breadth, but I was very happy to sign Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I will give one example. In July this year, Rother District Council received an application from Brookworth Homes to amend its permission for a 20-residence project in Battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent. That is just one example of a place that desperately needs social housing. I will stop there, because I want to get to a vote if the Government do not give way.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 85 in this group concerns an issue that I first raised in Committee. At the national level, there is much talk of the urgent need to build 1.5 million new homes. They are even promoted with rather empty, Trump-like slogans. Mere numbers of new units will not provide a solution to many families and individuals in our country. What is urgently required is a national debate about the type of housing unit that is most needed, and how these will be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has rightly focused on one area of desperate need: homes for social rent. Amendment 85 throws a beam of light —maybe even hope, if the Minister responds as I hope she will—on those families, and especially the children, living in temporary accommodation.
The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000 children in our country—one of the wealthiest in the world—are living in temporary accommodation. Some 50% of all those experiencing homelessness are children. This could be a result of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a Section 25 eviction notice—at least, and at last, the Government have outlawed Section 21 evictions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we support the intentions behind Amendments 72 and 85 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pinnock, and others for bringing them forward.
There is no doubt that we need more affordable housing and more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through and that, too often, affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. Amendment 72 puts forward a clear principle that, if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered, and that social rent should form a meaningful part of that. This is right and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we would want to ensure that any new duty works effectively within existing planning and viability frameworks.
However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities. This is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentages or mix, specialist but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. That is how I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people—freeing up family homes as a consequence—and for those with significant disabilities, as well as short-term accommodation. I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let us make this absolutely clear: we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability for developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission.
Amendment 85 rightly highlights the needs of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation, a group whose experiences are often invisible in planning policy. Ensuring that local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step and we support it, but I refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. Again, I am going to refer to my own experience, and to one of the proudest things I did when I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council. We had about 125 households in bread and breakfast; 10 years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. There were two key reasons for it. One was that we built specialist temporary accommodation and converted some buildings for that; but the second is that we built homes they could move into. So, we also need to consider that we must build the quantum of homes that is needed if we are truly to address the issue of homelessness.
Both amendments speak to the same wider truth: housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the Government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 72. I have to say that the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, when we are trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created, are a bit rich. But I will park that for the moment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am pleased that the last Government delivered 1 million homes over the last five years. I will be delighted if this Government deliver 1.5 million, but at the moment, they are on track to deliver considerably fewer, increasing that crisis.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord’s Government left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation.
As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent, but we take a different view from the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local authorities greater flexibility to deliver the right tenure mix to suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.
I understand the frustrations around the issue of viability, so the Government are also reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure that the system works to optimise developer contributions, and that negotiation or renegotiation of Section 106 agreements takes place only when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under Section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, so they can be enforced by the local planning authority. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing.
Turning to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, while we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we cannot support this approach. The planning system is already complex, and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how laudable, are not required in statute, given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of the people placed there. On World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for Amendment 72. I thank my noble friend Lord Carlile for his eloquent words, and I offer the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, sincere thanks for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is unfortunately unable to support this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear would not achieve the majority it needs.
I do not accept the noble Lord’s point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of affordable housing, and social rented housing in particular, is necessarily a blockage to flexibility. The baseline of 20% at social rents—the typical housing association and council rents—would not put a great burden on the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I do not think it would entail an additional burden.
Sometimes the older people’s housing of the kind that the noble Lord has produced in his own borough—and I strongly congratulate him, as council leader, on achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people; he has done a great job—will be social housing and would count towards the affordable housing quota that I am talking about; sometimes it will be housing for outright sale, which would not be part of this equation so we would not worry about it. Having a baseline of 20% social housing as an absolute minimum is not going to impede—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
If I may just be clear, I apologise but I meant affordable housing that was for older people; I did not mean housing for private sale, when I talked about flexibility. I apologise if that was not clear.
Lord Best (CB)
Yes, well, I am sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote.
What I will say is that I am deeply grateful to the Minister for explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration and that we will be getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than in the past. So I am grateful to her, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a hotel has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is a hotel proposed for use as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing of a hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 87E tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation.
Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities—divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice.
The principle is straightforward: changing the use of a hotel or a house in multiple occupation—HMO—to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, ensuring proper consultation and clarity for councils, residents and local businesses. At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This is not about the approach of the current or the previous Government; it is about what is right for the British people.
Protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout the Bill. It is a terrible shame that, when the same principle arises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our local communities, people such as the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue. We had hoped that all noble Lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question of asylum policy; this is simply a question of giving communities a voice. The country is watching, and it is vital that we act. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of hotels for asylum seekers, pending assessment of their applications. Amendment 87E in my name offers a different solution to those challenging issues. On these Benches, we recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. I note that the Government have also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, there is a danger that this subject tends to generate more heat than light, as I think we have heard just now, so I thought I would—from the perspective of a planning silk—explain what these amendments would and would not do, so that we are all clear about that.
These amendments are not about the principle of asylum hotels, nor are they about the principle of small boats. They are about providing clarity and certainty to the planning regime, which needs clarity and certainty in order to operate effectively. Currently, the position in law under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act is that a change of use of premises requires planning permission only if that change of use is material. There is case law—most recently the Epping judgment, but there are other judgments over the last few years, including cases in Great Yarmouth—to the effect of whether a change of use is material is an evaluative judgment on the facts of the case.
In the context of asylum hotels, that can be a very difficult and unpredictable evaluative judgment, made even more difficult by the mission creep of some of these hotels. They can start off with families, then the nature of their use can change. That uncertainty is disadvantageous to all participants in the planning system. It is disadvantageous to the commercial hotel operators, because they are being asked to invest money to fit out the hotel for asylum seekers, without knowing whether that investment may come back to bite them if it later turns out they needed planning permission and did not have it, and they are enforced against. It creates uncertainty for communities, because they do not know whether particular operations in their neighbourhood require planning permission and are something to which they should be given a right to participate in the decision-making on.
Fundamentally, it creates uncertainty for local planning authorities, which are on the horns of a dilemma. They have to choose whether to turn a blind eye and let a potential breach of planning control continue, or to bring enforcement proceedings, which, if brought in court, can cost hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of pounds, putting them and the local taxpayer at risk of significant adverse costs. It is very hard to tell in advance what the prospects of success in such proceedings will be, given the very delicate, nuanced nature of the decision, and the evaluative judgment on whether a particular change of use is material or not.
Fundamentally, the clue is in the name. Planning is meant to be predictable in all forms and all manifestations of the regime. If you cannot plan, the system does not work. Therefore, this amendment would make it very straightforward and provide a clear line in the sand that any change of use to an asylum hotel or an HMO would be deemed a material change of use. Every protagonist in the planning system would then know where they stand: that this needs planning permission.
These amendments do not constrain the decision whether to grant planning permission, and nor do they in any way affect the merits or prospects of an application for planning permission. All they do is let everybody know where they stand. I urge the House, and particularly the Liberal Democrats: let us focus on the real issue that these amendments put into play and cut the rhetoric.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on these amendments. The Government may say that if you stop these conversions of hotels, where will we put the people? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked the same question. That is a fair question. The answer is to use all spare military accommodation, recently used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the Government want to do that, and they must have the guts to stick to it, because they will have public support, even though left-wing immigration lawyers will mount judicial reviews against it.
So, His Majesty’s Government, do not be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier barracks. I stayed there 50 years ago, and it is 100 times better now than it was then. Many noble Lords will have experience of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants.
It was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men. How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania and other European countries, and lived in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais, before crowding into a little boat. Others have come from Eritrea, Somalia and up through Egypt, Libya, Italy and on to Calais. I am sure they had premium accommodation en route.
How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age? If they had to stay in Barry Buddon, stuck out in the coast in Fife next to Carnoustie, where 30 of us were in a nissen hut with one big cast iron potbelly stove, they might have something to complain about, but not in the current accommodation. So, His Majesty’s Government, please do not back down on the use of former military accommodation, or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure off unsuitable hotels.
On Amendment 87E, I do not trust any Government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation—caravans, chalets, portable homes, portakabins—and put them on these bases or other military land. That is a better solution and answers some of the question, “If you close these hotels, where will you put them?”. I have suggested it in my comments tonight.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I first turn to Amendments 73 to 75, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue but I point out that it relates to ongoing legal proceedings, which I am sure that she appreciates I cannot comment on.
The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure. While the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the Government need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels—only if and when it is necessary—to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove the ability to do so.
The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers while their application for asylum is being considered. We know that this has led to concerns among some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has caused understandable concern. That is why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.
Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I was frankly astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Under her Government, as a council leader I pressed over and over again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by agents of the Home Office, not least because international businesses in my town needed them. Her Government did not listen to our community, its elected representatives or our businesses; they overruled us and ploughed ahead regardless.
This Government have made clear our intention to stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so used has almost halved since its peak under the previous Government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department is working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—military sites, that would contribute to a more flexible estate.
Restricting the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels. While we understand why these amendments have been brought forward—I will not comment on why, but we understand it—they would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation, and prevent us proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to.
Amendment 87E, brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities were proposed. The amendment is unnecessary, as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular, Section 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order that can either itself grant planning permission or make for the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. That includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows local planning authorities to grant planning permission for development, including conditional planning permission, and Section 77 makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them himself.
In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of development in primary legislation. We are committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way. The Home Office’s programme of transformation and business improvement is speeding up decision-making, reducing the time people spend in the system and reducing the numbers who are awaiting an interview or decision and remain in hotels.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will speak as Leader of the Opposition; I do not wish to interfere with this debate. I have no intention of moving the adjournment of the House, which has been suggested might happen. We will proceed to the end of the debate and my noble friend Lady Scott will respond to the Minister.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is now past 10 pm, the normal hour when the House rises according to the Companion. We had a discussion last Tuesday, on my initiative, about the sitting times of the House. We were told that it would be to the advantage of the House to meet at 11 am. That was not agreed by the opposition parties or the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. We find ourselves here at 10 pm, having sat in the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider.
With all due respect to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, this is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had Ministers here on duty since 11 am and we have had members of the staff here on duty for 11 hours. If the House chooses, as it chose last Tuesday, to meet at 11 am, we must end at the time when the Companion says that we should end. There is a better way of proceeding, which has to be done by agreement in the usual channels.
I have no doubt that, after my noble friend Lady Scott responds, we will move to a Division in the proper way of your Lordships’ House. However, I expect—and I think many other Members of your Lordships’ House would expect—the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms to come to the Dispatch Box after the Division to explain quite how long he expects the House to continue this evening. It would be to the improvement of us all if we could return to our normal ways of doing things. I therefore give him notice of that.
Let us proceed with and conclude the debate, and let us have our Division. Please let us then, outside this Chamber if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stumps at an appropriate time. Ministers have done enough; my colleagues have done enough; the House has done enough; and the staff have done enough.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I can very briefly come to the Dispatch Box now. Can I first say how much I respect the noble Lord? We are very clear: I know that the noble Lord and his party did not support the suggestion of starting at 11 am, but that was a decision of the House. My intention is that, when these votes are finished, we will rise. We have three votes, so after about 30 minutes we will be rising; I have no intention of going beyond that. We will have the votes and then go home.
I am also always very happy to discuss things in the usual channels, and obviously we will discuss things in the coming days and weeks. But we will have our votes and then we will adjourn the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, going back to the debate, it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the Government’s record on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy; it is not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people: the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Will the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, explain to the House why it has taken five years for her party to come to the conclusion that planning permission for a change of use is needed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We did—and the party opposite voted against it. We had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.
At its heart, this debate is about fairness and local accountability. Time and again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads and imposed without notice, consultation or trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The Government’s record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there. What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision-making process.
On Report, the Minister suggested that I tabled these amendments for a different purpose. She knows me well enough to know that, when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principled: to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and again, the pattern emerges: decisions are made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability. This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy, and we on these Benches are determined to stand up for local people and local communities. Now I wish to test the opinion of the House, first on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers: requirement for planning permission(1) Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1), insert—“(1ZA) For the purposes of this section, “the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land” includes—(a) the repurposing of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, and(b) where a house in multiple occupation has already been repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers, the continuation of its use as such accommodation beyond the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force.”(3) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert “unless the building is proposed for use as a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers”.(4) After section 106C of that Act insert—“106D Use of houses in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekersAny existing or future development order under Part 3 of this Act does not have the effect of granting planning permission for the use of a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that an application for planning permission is required in all cases of repurposing a house in multiple occupation as accommodation for asylum seekers, together with the associated requirement for consultation of affected local communities.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the Question should be that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I was just too keen, after sitting on the Bench since 11 o’clock this morning.