Planning and Infrastructure Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

I shall be interested to hear how the Minister will persuade the House that the Government are carrying out the policies to which they have signed up instead of, dare I say it, noble Lords having to put them into primary legislation to make the Government do their job.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond on this group of amendments, I convey my get-well wishes to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who, as noble Lords will realise, very much hoped to be here with us today, but unfortunately is unwell. I know that she wanted to take part in today’s discussions. We all send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I am grateful to hear the passion around the Chamber on both climate change and biodiversity, and the healthy tension that seems to have arisen between the two in this morning’s discussion. The key issue is that they are, of course, interdependent, and we have to consider both.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Amendment 114, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill.

We support the principle that both central and local government should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system. Of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that local government has a vital role in all this. However, as made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include in their local plans policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. There is also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system. It also includes the environmental principles duty, which applies to Ministers when making policy.

Furthermore, the Environment Agency produces the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities, such as district councils, lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards, are required to act in accordance with.

The National Planning Policy Framework incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We have committed to consulting this year on a clearer set of national policies to support decision-making. This will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it is launched. The exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration, so it would not be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place.

I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about overheating. As he will know, we always keep building regulations under review, but I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it.

It is crucial that we address climate change in an effective way that avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system risks opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate change is as a concept. I understand the noble Lord’s good intentions, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of the policies and decision-making needed to tackle this important issue.

I should stress that, although planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision-making, this should not obscure the significant influence they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations that must be taken into account where they are relevant. I have written to all noble Lords on this matter.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions related to the NPPF, and I am happy to continue meeting him about that. Although we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships will agree that the approach I have set out is the more appropriate route to ensuring that this happens. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 121F, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy. It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of the amendment, as it seeks to embed the environment in planning policy. However, it is unnecessary because it duplicates existing legislation. When setting policy, Ministers must have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy. It sets out a robust framework on how to embed environmental decision-making into policy-making.

Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including by protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.

Where relevant, legislation such as the environmental impact assessment regulations and habitats regulations also applies, which ensures that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities decide whether to grant consent. Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which require the likely significant effects of a plan or programme to be reported and include reference to biodiversity.

As the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says, we have created

“powerful new tools such as Biodiversity Net Gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure that habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development”.

I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, agrees that existing legislation and policy is in place and this amendment is not needed. I ask him to consider not pressing his amendment.

Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require those performing functions under Part 3 to have regard to the Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise that the noble Earl is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act but suggest that the existing approach in the Bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.

Clause 88(3) already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act where it was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it is not relevant. The noble Earl will be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act throughout the planning process, so I hope he understands why including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary. On that basis, I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, provided an excellent sum-up about climate change not being the only game in town. That is an important consideration, which is why I attempted in my Amendment 114 to join things up and include the Environment Act alongside climate change considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also made an important point about systems join-up and said that we need to consider adaptation very strongly as well in how we take all this forward.

I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. She listed a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this issue is mentioned. But, of course, that is partly the point of this amendment—that it would provide a link-up between all the scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the “special regard” wording has been well tested in respect of heritage buildings. I recognise that it is already reflected but I am trying to drive at the fact that it needs weight within the planning system.

I am encouraged by what the Minister had to say about the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to convey from this side of the House our hopes for the swift recovery of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

As I raised in Committee, spatial development strategies and local plans should be the strategic documents that map out development in an area. This could be the stage where all the complex issues and trade-offs can be addressed to deliver the housing, commercial infrastructure and community facilities that we need, while also addressing the environmental impact and other issues. As such, there is a strong argument that these should include the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site-by-site basis.

It would also be an alternative, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, to the Government’s proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities, could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly had some of our previous amendments been included—for instance, my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, pointed out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development. For landowners and developers, it could reduce the cost and speed up the process.

We support the intentions of these amendments, however—unfortunately, there is a however—the amendment as laid out does not address the key second part: ensuring that developments in line with an approved spatial development strategy or local plan satisfy the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site-by-site basis. To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the Bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these amendments risk adding stages and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site-by-site basis, with that additional burden adding delays to the planning process and further costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments.

I should also like to take this opportunity, as we are discussing habitats regulations, to ask whether the Government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the habitats regulation in Clause 90 to Ramsar sites.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to ensure that local plans comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that an authority which prepares a local plan carries out a full environmental impact assessment for all sites designated as suitable for development in that plan.

I hope I can deal with these matters quickly and reassure the noble Baroness that local planning authorities are already required to undertake habitats regulations assessments where there is the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations. Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the local plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness’s amendment would go further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project-level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan.

As I mentioned in Committee, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan-making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Turning to Amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the habitats regulations are applied to spatial development strategies. This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments where appropriate.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to mandate habitats regulations assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, but the Bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site-specific habitats regulations assessments during the preparation of SDSs. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process, even if this amendment was accepted by the House.

I shall answer a couple of the questions asked. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra and is due for publication next year. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about Ramsar. We shall have a debate about that later in the course of the Bill, so I am sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given those clarifications, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not pressing her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I intend to speak only to Amendment 117 in my name. I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for the amendment.

I raised this issue in Committee and explained the urgent need to give local authorities additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on our high streets. It is no coincidence that gambling operators wish to locate their premises in deprived areas where people can least afford to gamble yet sadly gamble most. Research shows that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of population as the least deprived local authorities. There are not only clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and the problems that this creates for individuals, their families and those communities.

But councils that wish to reduce this harm by limiting the number of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005: Section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so. Therefore, the power they need, which they already have in the case of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence-based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas. If that assessment shows that in any area there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment—a cumulative impact assessment. Once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the relevant Minister at the time, knows that it is exactly what the Conservatives supported in their 2023 White Paper. It is also what the current Government have said they want to achieve. On 9 June, in reply to a Written Question in the other place, the DCMS Minister said that

“cumulative impact assessments … would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area. We will look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to licensing of gambling premises … when parliamentary time allows”.

Even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the Government. He said:

“It is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments, like those already in place for alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and numbers of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/25; col. 281.]


The Minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities, and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that, where a gambling operator wishes to open new gambling premises, it needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat, and a gambling premises licence from the local authority, wearing its licensing authority hat. Because this is a planning Bill, the amendment that I moved in Committee would have given the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority. In reply, the Minister said:

“The Government are … of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority, rather than the planning authority”. —[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1449.]


That is why they were not willing to support it.

The amendment that I am now moving would accordingly give the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment, exactly as happens for alcohol licensing, and the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission for gambling premises, again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the Bill.

This is a power that local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises. On Monday, in the other place, the Minister from MHCLG, in a Written Answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. She said:

“We will introduce Cumulative Impact Assessments when parliamentary time allows”.


The Bill provides the parliamentary time, and the amendment can deliver what the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and the Government say that they want.

I am more than happy to accept that the Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely do not think there are. But if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before Third Reading, I assure her that I will not delay the House and will be willing later to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister also send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman?

[Noble Lords]

Lady Hayman.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Sorry, Lady Hayman. The noble Baroness is always an ally on the topic of small businesses, which is the subject of my Amendment 121G; I will concentrate on this rather than on gambling premises, which are also considered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, spoke with great eloquence, for which I thank him.

I tabled Amendment 121G following our discussion on Amendment 119. It is an attempt to persuade the Minister to think again. Although it was a late debate, there was considerable support in the House for my attempt in Amendment 119. I continue to prefer that formula and am planning to divide on it; however, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under the Bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers in engaging with the planning system. Such businesses, spread across the country, could make a much larger contribution to the Government’s house- building target of 1.5 million homes. The achievement of this target is going backwards—as we know from the leaked letter sent by the Home Builders Federation to the OBR—with productivity, which I care a lot about, also adversely affected.

Small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country. If they are freed up, as we recommended in the cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on demand for housing, they can make a huge difference. The difficulties that they face have meant that, in the past 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has officially declined from 39% to 10%; actually, I heard from a noble Lord last week that it has now declined to a new low of 9%.

The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend. I believe that we must use the Bill to make things easier. My new amendment, to which it may be easier for the Government to agree, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but it would do so in planning guidance. This would leave the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for MHCLG Ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs, and to translate that into guidance, but we must have in the Bill a reference to reducing barriers for SMEs if such businesses and their charitable counterparts are to start resuming their historical place in housing.

The changes in the site size thresholds working paper, which the Minister referenced, are generally welcome. However, we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing. For example, perhaps we could have an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and/or Natural England—or some other means; that can be decided on later—but a reference to the SME mission, which the Government purport to support, is needed because, in Whitehall and among these bodies, there is limited support for small businesses. I know this from my long career in dealing with all of them.

As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers for SMEs. Referring to this in the Bill is, I believe, the way to inject more competition, diversity and enterprise into the sector. SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, local employment and, above all, growth. It is extraordinary that there is nothing in the Bill to promote it. I hope that the Minister will be willing to agree to amend the guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House—going beyond the consultations that are going on—or through a government amendment. She would gain many plaudits, and I encourage her to think again.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak solely to Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to which I have attached my name. The noble Lord has already introduced it eloquently and powerfully, but I want to add a bit of context and a little more information to what he said.

The context is that, at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday—it was, of course, talking about taxing gambling rather than licensing it; none the less, this is a relevant comment—the head of the Betting and Gaming Council was asked about the social ills of gambling. She said that there is no social ill and that the industry is doing

“everything that it possibly can in order to mitigate any harms that may be caused by our products”.

I would suggest that that testimony is either not honest or is astonishingly, unbelievably ignorant. What the industry is doing is everything possible to make money. We have an extreme inequality of arms. You have the industry, and then you have local authorities—particularly those in deprived areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said—that cannot do anything to stop the social ill and the damage that they can see being done.

--- Later in debate ---

I have one final stat, which is terribly important. What we are allowing is a tax on people’s desperation. The Gambling Commission survey that came out this month showed that the top reason for gambling, given by 85% of people, is because they hope to have a big win. People are desperate. The survey showed that 27% of those living in the most deprived areas gambled at least weekly; in the least deprived areas, the figure is 14%.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a few remarks on Amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I also support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling premises. I am a former MP who represented a town centre, Redditch, where we often saw these challenges in maintaining a healthy mix of shops and businesses. Thinking about planning decisions on a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges cannot be fixed by planning alone, but planning can play a part.

Turning to Amendment 121G, I declare my interest as someone who was a small business owner and an entrepreneur for more than 30 years. I thank my lucky stars that that was not in the construction sector because, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate in—particularly for a small business. When I was the Housing and Planning Minister, I spent a lot of time with small and medium businesses. It was really difficult to hear their stories, which were often frustrating, heartbreaking and tragic. Ultimately, we as a country are losing out if we fail to support and nourish these incredibly hardy and resilient people. Many of them are at risk of losing their livelihoods; in fact, some recent statistics suggest that around half of SME construction businesses are at risk of insolvency by the end of this Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.

What my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has put forward is very sensible. She makes the point that, too often, the system defaults to one-size-fits-all requirements, which land heaviest on smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. It has 76 pages and is relatively concise, I agree, but it sits on top of a very large and complex ecosystem of guidance. This is one of the concerns that businesses repeatedly raise: the real burden lies in all of that additional guidance, not just in the 76 pages of the NPPF. Volume housebuilders can navigate such things easily, but it is not so for SMEs. For instance, negotiating Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder, on top of all of the cost burdens that they face.

Anyone who has been a local representative—whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament—knows well that opposition exists to virtually all housing of any kind, no matter where it is. However, in my experience, SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better position to overcome these hurdles and contribute to desperately needed housing.

In conclusion, these are practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places in which families want to live, shop and invest.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am appalled by the statement read to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords have to understand that it is very embarrassing for me to be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I have to say that what she just read out shows what a disgraceful industry this is and how much money is being made out of the poorest and most deprived places.

I have lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in one of the worst slum areas of Britain. He always said that gambling was much more damaging than drink or any of the other things to which referred. It was particularly damaging in his parish, which contained a large number of military personnel, both retired and present.

I hope that the Minister will not make the speech that I suspect I might have had written for me as a Minister. It goes like this: “This is a planning Bill, and this amendment refers to the licensing duties of a local authority. I know that we already said that it was more appropriate for licensing authorities than the Planning Bill but, because this is a planning Bill, we really believe that it should be left for a different piece of legislation”. Yet the Government have said that they will make these changes immediately when there is some opportunity in Parliament to do it.

This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long title of the Bill, so, if the Minister says that it cannot be done because it is not appropriate, I will have to say to her that I do not believe the House should accept that. The House should simply say that it is clearly appropriate and that this is a clear opportunity. If the Government do not support that, I say something very tough to them: this is about the very people whom this Government are always banging on about and are supposed to be supporting. These are the people who are most at risk from the bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they are doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money.

I say this to the Minister: there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening and at the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make. The biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company. That says something deeply offensive about our society; I do not believe that any of us should stop the battle to change this.

I wish also to say one thing about my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I hope that the Government will not say that it is not necessary to make the point about small businesses. My noble friend has concentrated on the construction industry but, very recently—in the past three years—I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it had originally been since 1463: a public house.

That piece of planning change for a very small business —I do not know what I was doing starting a small business at my age, but there we were—for the benefit of the community, took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had for generations. At the end of that year, the cost of what one was trying to do for the community was significantly greater than at the beginning. The reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second-hand pamments and bricks; we were obviously going to do so because that is my attitude to these things. My architect said, “My client is strongly concerned about climate change and wishes, therefore, to use second-hand materials”. He got back from the conservation officer a note that said, “I don’t care about climate change; I’m interested only in conservation”.

Even if you know something about these things, it is very difficult to put up with a year of that kind of conversation. I merely say to the Minister that it is essential that we have in this Bill a clear statement that small businesses must be treated with the consideration that they do not have the means to do things that big businesses have. I really hope that we can resurrect small construction businesses, but we will not do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will put the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, out of his misery. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 117. He raises a very important issue, and I will explain how we intend to address it. I assure him that the Government intend to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when parliamentary time allows; I will elaborate on that in a moment. He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place Strategy, published since we last discussed this issue. I imagine that is what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place, which the noble Lord referred to.

There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. I heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about what was said in the Select Committee, but I think there is consensus across this House that harms undoubtedly come from gambling. Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises’ licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system— I will come to further points on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in a moment—and it is unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing. Under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the cumulative impact assessment would be published by the licensing authority but be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that his amendment would risk creating inconsistencies between the approaches of the local authority’s planning policies and the licensing authority’s statement of licensing principles. The Government’s view is that it is essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions when considering whether to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage. This is a planning Bill, not a licensing Bill—

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Can I just finish what I am saying? It might help. The issue is out of scope, but we have Bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Just before the Minister sits down, she has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and planning. However, the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns that she raised when we debated it earlier. It has now changed in such a way that it would absolutely replicate what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem, and I do not begin to understand the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. It would be helpful if she could explain.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that that is helpful. Turning to Amendment 121G—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Just before the Minister moves on, I am puzzling over the use of the word “scope” here. We seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope of the Bill; that has been agreed by our experts in the Legislation Office. Yet the Minister is saying that, in the Government’s view, it is somehow not in scope. Can she say what the difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as the Government are defining it?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am loath to explain the Legislation Office’s rationale. I am surprised that the amendment was allowed for the planning Bill, but we are where we are. I am trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can: we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can, but we do not believe that this Bill is the right place for it. We want to put it in a Bill where it is in scope and will do that as quickly as possible.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Can I help the Minister on this? Why does she not just say that she will accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she would not be promising anything that is not there. Frankly, it is very worrying for us that she cannot accept, having listened to the debate, that the Government have got the measurement of scope wrong and have said something about gambling which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong. I am sure that she does not mean to say that to the House. Therefore, is not this the moment for her to say to the House: “I will take this away and come back having looked at it”? In that case, we would not need to have a vote on it, which would be much more sensible.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This is Report, and I believe that the Government’s position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is right, so I will hold my line on it. I know that that will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but it is very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime. We will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.

I turn to Amendment 121G, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her strong championing, as ever, of this sector. I share her passion for ensuring that we do all we can to support it. I also commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SME House Builders; he continues to keep me informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector. I welcome the recent launch of its report setting out all the issues that they are facing and what the Government can do.

The Government are committed to increasing support across the housebuilding sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s and this long-term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the construction sector and the loss of weaker firms weakening market diversity and resilience. I gently point out to the noble Baroness that there was a period of 14 years when her party was in government and might have looked to support the sector a bit better during those years.

--- Later in debate ---

12:49

Division 1

Ayes: 97

Noes: 128

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

119: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning process: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises(1) When discharging any duty under this Act relating to planning and development, the people and bodies in subsection (2) must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process, and(b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.(2) The people and bodies are—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) mayors,(c) local authorities,(d) Natural England, and(e) all other people and bodies with duties under this Act.(3) In this section, “small and medium-sized enterprises” are companies with fewer than 250 employees involved in the design, application for planning consent or construction of between one and nine residential dwellings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Act pay consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have tried to get a reference to SMEs in the Bill and I thank everybody who has supported me. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and, if we pass it, the Government with the help of parliamentary counsel will amend it suitably. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this important amendment.

13:01

Division 2

Ayes: 133

Noes: 188