Lords Chamber

Thursday 17th July 2025

(began 4 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
None Portrait Introduction(s): Bishop of Chester
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and Territories King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the faith, to The Right Reverend, our trusty and beloved Mark Simon Austen, Bishop of Mark Simon Austen, Bishop of Chichester, greet him. Whereas our Parliament, the state and the church Parliament, the state and the church is now met at Westminster, we, strictly in adjoining, commend you upon the faith and love which you upon the faith and love which you are bound to us, considering the difficulty of the said affairs and difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending, whereas all excuses you be personally present excuses you be personally present with us, and the prelates, nobles and peers of our said kingdom, to and peers of our said kingdom, to treat and give your counsel.

In treat and give your counsel. In this, as you regard us and our honour, and the safety and defence honour, and the safety and defence of the kingdom and church, and dispatch of the said affairs, and nowise do you admit. Witness our self at Westminster, the 19th day of self at Westminster, the 19th day of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

June in the third year of our reign. I swear by Almighty God that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I swear by Almighty God that I will be be faithful and is were true will be be faithful and is were true allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
None Portrait Oral questions: Interavailability of rail tickets Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-

question. She has been an election monitor with the OSCE and so have I and I think it would be wrong to undermine that work.
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
None Portrait Oral questions: Tackling unsustainable debt in cooperation with partners in the global South Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour)
-

market a defective public transport service and we must get to the stage when that nonsense is no longer
11:31
11:32
11:32
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Gwynne's debt relief act. Will this government consider introducing an updated law to support millions of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people in debt distress countries? I am grateful to my noble friend for her question and pay tribute to her considerable expertise on these issues. I know she served as shadow Minister for Africa for several years. The government agrees that years. The government agrees that private creditors must play their private creditors must play their part in debt restructuring. There are commitments to coordinate on debt commitments under the framework. Private creditors must framework. Private creditors must participate in restructurings on terms at least as favourable as terms at least as favourable as those provided by official creditors.

We have seen evidence of private creditors willingness to private creditors willingness to engage and provide debt treatment when needed. We are concerned about when needed. We are concerned about the potential negative impact legislation could have, particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the cost of finance for developing countries. The UK is not currently pursuing legislation given the lack of evidence to justify such an approach evidence to justify such an approach and potentially wider adverse consequences. We will continue to keep evidence and our position under review. Dimensions South Sudan, as I review. Dimensions South Sudan, as I understand, this complex situation with an African financial institution based in Cairo, South Sudan is not undergoing restructuring with creditors, so it restructuring with creditors, so it is not clear that such legislation would improve that particular would improve that particular
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to respond to the statement and accompanying green paper on the future of the Post Office and this marks the first review in 15 years and I would say it raises as many questions as it seeks to answer. We recognise on these benches, as I believe all the Bulldogs do, the vital role of the Post Office in every corner of the country, -- all noble Lords do. It is a trusted lifeline for elderly customers and far more than a delivery counterpart part of the national fabric.

And yet, as we imagine the green paper, we are confronted with proposals that suggest the government is more focus on listening restrictions. I begin with the removal of the requirement for 11,500 branches. The government says the figure is arbitrary and has long underpinned confidence in the reach of the Post Office network. The green paper claims some branches exist solely to meet the target of 11,500 rather than the community need and if that is the case, how many of these branches are there and where are they? These questions go to the heart of rural and community to the heart of rural and community access.

Does he Minister expect the current access criteria will be changed in the timeframe of this Parliament? Does the government accept we have to ask the questions order may be the suspicion we are entering a phase of managed decline. The government assures us that 99% of the population remain within 3 miles of the branch. I will be promise be maintained without the number of branches? Should we accept consolidation in urban centres at the cost of village branches? We do not feel we should replace geographic equity with spreadsheet logic.

The referred path for the future ownership of the Post Office appears to be neutralisation which is a model that has long had appeal. The fine print of the green paper tells a different story. It has been pushed beyond the current parliament and only after a further three years, if it happens at all. For many postmasters who endured over a decade of uncertainty and the profound trauma of the Horizon scandal, the proposed timeline may feel like a further referral rather than a qubit.

Moreover, it offers no clarity on financial stability and looking at the benchmarks which will trigger neutralisation. Can the Minister provide more information? A major unwelcome focus of the green paper is a future proofing. After the Horizon scandal, Norman in the South needs reminding technology does not assure progress, particularly when accountability is absent. It is vital in the wake of the Horizon scandal that any new technologies are subject to independent testing and transparent auditing.

They must be sure of the channels to raise concerns, free from fear of reprisal and we cannot afford another Horizon. There was the matter of Royal Mail and there is a possibility of working more closely but it has been told I is not being considered. Visit of the table entirely or on pause? It calls itself the start of an honest conversation. We are happy to believe that but the government must begin by answering the questions and we will continue to look at the future of access, ownership, technological governance, and the true role of the Post Office in national life.

After everything they have endured and all that was laid bare in the scandal, we must not make it about responsibility but about restoring trust and Abbott at the government too much consultation with clarity, ambition, integrity.
12:26
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We have spoken about the green paper but I understood we were only responding to the first report and so I apologise if we are meant to cover the green paper. We need time to consider the first report from the inquiry and that is because the statement expresses many of the sentiments that we often hear at the dispatch box. It includes the bravery of postmasters, descriptions of what the Post Office is, and governments over a number of years and this is true but the problem is, once again, a judge leading and inquiry has had to call out the lack of delivery, transparency, and the postmasters are being victimised again.

It is unacceptable. It is close to the old-fashioned saying that words and figures do not agree. , will he consider the recommendations carefully? Secondly, will they look at this and report back to Parliament in three months? Some postmasters are dying. Until they all have financial composition, they remain in limbo created in Whitehall. Page 48 of the report sets out the design of the scheme which is meant to be user-friendly and it says that the eligibility criteria was determined by employees and not by people independent and employees decided whether the postmaster had suffered a shortfall and the assessors would value that in light of recommendation from the independent panel.

The operating party of the panel was speed, and to assess the terms of reference created by the Post Office. This is just one example from the excellent report and it demonstrates why these schemes must be run independently from the body that caused the damage. He recommends an independent body, not something at arms length because that is not independent. It is government going to consider this seriously because, from the statement, it does not sound like it. What will it take to change this? We know have or have had problems with the Horizon scheme, and the government approach to address the remedy regardless of the government fails time and time again.

And there is no real desire to change. Then there is the issue of Fujitsu and Sir Wyn so they Post Office our government must start conversations with Fujitsu about the scheme. Will the Minister provide a timetable for this? There is another Fujitsu issue. It's clear from the evidence heard at the inquiry that they were complicit at the least and proactive advice and helping the post office in cases in court against postmasters over many years. We know that the police are investigating this, including for rotary and other serious crimes.

There is another further question - why does the government continue to re-contract Fujitsu in other areas? Can the Minister reassure the House that the government is confident that Fujitsu meets the high standard required in large IT contracts? It is good that it is proposed that the family members of those who suffered during the scandal will receive redress but before the government copies the arrangements for the infected blood scandal, will the police look at the large problems that the -- will be please look at the problems the scheme has? It still has 18 months before the first composition.

Finally, in Opposition, Labour repeatedly promised that this would be a priority to ensure discussion started in the early stage, as it becomes clear there are problems somewhere. The government has delayed the introduction of the bill. Can the Minister say when legislation will be presented to Parliament? We do not believe that is enough on the Liberal Democrat benches. It's essential for whistleblowers have a safe place to air concerns and we believe an independent office to ensure the repeated slapping down if anyone expressing concerns, which delete many truths coming out, must be set up.

The decades are shameful episode in the history of this country and we need mechanisms in place to we need mechanisms in place to
12:32
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank both noble Lords for their comments. The inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams has asked some wise and penetrating questions and scrutinise more than 2 million pages of evidence. I would like to extend my thanks to Sir Wyn and his team for their commitment to confronting the impact of this terrible scandal. I would like to thank the advisory board for their hard work in helping to improve the delivery of redress.

We will continue to seek their guidance on how we can continue to improve delivery, particularly in light of the recommendations made in Sir Wyn's report. The volume published last Tuesday is only the first volume of Sir Wyn's Final Report. It focuses on the human impact of the Horizon IT scandal and We look forward to receiving the subsequent volume from the inquiry when it is published in due course. Sir Wyn's report lays bare the wide-ranging suffering endured by victims of the scandal. The distress and severe disruption that was experienced so acutely.

Victims lost money, they lost health, they lost their liberty, in the most tragic cases, they lost their lives. We own it to them to have a proper redress on the crimes committed. Sir Wyn's report focuses on the redress scheme set up by this and the previous government, 19 recommendations made for the government to consider. The government welcomed the recommendations to which we have committed to respond to by 10 October. We will of course review all of the recommendations and evidence behind them in detail.

I hope to be back here in October at the dispatch box to update Parliament on the progress we are making. We announced we will accept free of Sir Wyn's recommendations, including extending redress to the most severely affected family members, and introducing the best offer approach in the GLO scheme. The government is keen to ensure we get redress to those affected as soon as possible. We recognise that Have found that schemes adversarial and difficult to navigate.

Over the past year we made improvements that have sped up the process of claims. In the last 12 months, this government more than quadrupled the total amount of redress paid, which now stands at nearly £1.1 billion, but we recognise there is more to do. The horizon scheme which sparked the whole scandal should have gone long ago. The task of replacing Horizon is complex, it cannot be done overnight. In the meantime, it remains critical to the delivery of the essential Post Office services on which people depend.

We want to end the use of Horizon and draw a line under Fujitsu's involvement in the Post Office. As part of the investment during this parliament we committed up to 136 million this financial year to invest in new technology and replace Horizon. Lord Sharpe asked about the Green Paper, 12 months ago, we inherited a Post Office in crisis, declaring financial sustainability, unsustainable leadership and networks struggling to maintain services and a reputation shattered by the Horizon scandal and its appalling treatment of sub- postmasters, as the report has underlined.

The Green Paper published this week begins a national dialogue on the future of national dialogue on the future of the Post Office. So we can create a modern, resilient, and financially sustainable organisation. While we recognise the Post Office is history, the Green Paper is about looking forward and not backwards. We need to recognise the serious cultural issues of the past and ensure that going forwards, the Post Office has a positive, postmaster focused culture. And we recognise the important role that Post Offices can play in rural areas and as a banking hub, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

The noble Lord asked about the progress and possible moves on changes to government. No changes will be made until the inquiry's final report, to allow the government to consider the recommendations on government issues together with responses. The noble Lady asked about Fujitsu and the technology. The Post Office is committed to moving away from Fujitsu and the Horizon system. It has a plan to introduce a new system. The Post Office's technology portfolio is to transform data across the Post Office whilst removing Horizon.

Noble Lady wanted to see speed in this, this is a complex programme of work that cannot be completed overnight given the range of transactions the IT system needs to support. Nevertheless, we will move at pace to try and bring those changes about. The noble Lady also asked about Fujitsu's continued involvement. The first thing to say is Fujitsu acknowledge their moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal and the government welcomes this. The extent of Fujitsu's of ability for the scandal will not be clear until all parties in the inquiry's report is published.

The departmental business has had talks with Fujitsu on the company's cost to the scandal. Including whether any interim payment should be made. The noble Lady asked about progress on redress. We share the postmasters's frustration that redress has been too slow. However, we massively increase the pace, paid out nearly £1.1 billion, four times what has been paid when we took office. We already made positive interventions, including £75 fixed offer for claimants, launching the Post Offices redress for convicted claimants into it, the appeal scheme and promised redress for capture victims.

We will continue to look at Sir Wyn Williams's recommendations to see what more we can do. It remains the mission of this government to bring the victims of the Horizon scandal the justice they deserve and make sure a miscarriage of justice does not happen again. As well as fixing the past, we must build on the future. The Green Paper published earlier this week begins a national dialogue on the future of the Post Office. Our priority now is building a modern, financially sustainable Post Office that is run in an accountable and postmaster focused way.

I hope noble Lords will support those objectives. support those objectives.
12:40
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Portrait Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
-
I was astonished at the contribution from the opposition frontbench. Not just because, as the noble Lady from the Liberal Democrats said, because I assumed this was a specifically orderly report, not just the Green Paper, but because he was talking about the future of the Post Office and mentioned Royal Mail without acknowledging that the demise of the Post Office and the Royal Mail has been under the Tory party under the last 14 years. It has.

If you look at other countries you will see a much better system continuing with most of our competitors. I want to raise two points, one raised by the noble Lady from the Liberal Democrats, the Minister answered by saying that we expect Fujitsu to contribute and discussions are underway. But have they been given a deadline by which this must be agreed? How much do we expect them to contribute? It needs to be a deal, otherwise the taxpayer is undertaking the cost again, as we have them with many things and will have to do with the Afghan compensation.

It should not be the taxpayer in this case, it should be Fujitsu. And prosecution, everyone seems to get away without any prosecutions in these kinds of things. When will the Minister talk with the Attorney-General and say when are we going to get some of the people who were responsible for the terrible tragedy that so many of the postmasters and post mistresses postmasters and post mistresses suffered, when will they be held to suffered, when will they be held to account? Because it is a about time account? Because it is a about time that they were.
12:42
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Is right the scandal occurred over many years and has taken a long time for the previous government and ourselves to really get to grips with the action that needs to be taken. Which is why the report is so important to provide extra clarity for us on the further actions we need to take. My noble friend talked about Fujitsu. There are active discussions with the government about their contribution. We are still awaiting the results of the second report from Sir Wyn to get a better sense of the complete culpability of Fujitsu in all of this.

We cannot pre-empt that but I think Fujitsu recognise they do have a role in making amends and we are in active discussions with them. My noble friend asked about criminal prosecutions and accountability. I think everybody shares their frustration that this is taking so long. But the action on accountability must await the conclusions of the Williams inquiry, the second part of this. Obviously, we all await that with interest. He will know as well that the Metropolitan Police investigation, which is independent of government, is currently taking active action on this.

They are a core participant in the Williams inquiry. They also have around 100 staff engaged on Horizon, looking at if there are any issues of criminal issues that need further following up. I know that the Metropolitan Police will be doing that in a very active way. that in a very active way.
12:43
12:44
12:46
12:46
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Then noble Lord is right. We need to speed up payments. We are taking steps to do that. The government has taken major steps in improving the delivery, leading to £1.1 billion being paid over 7900 victims. This is more than four times the total amount from last year and we need to continue to work on the issue and we have taken measures and that includes the introduction of the fixed offer for payments and we recently announced we are introducing facilitated discussions in the scheme as investigated by lawyers and we will not rest until the affected people have received this and that is the determination and it is very frustrating when these things get held up and we are trying to unblock blockages which still exist.

It is an absolute determination of the government that the individuals and close family members receive the redress that they are due. they are due.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join others in welcoming the first stage of this important report into this appalling scandal. It has into this appalling scandal. It has blighted many lakes and we know that, sadly, it has cost lives as that, sadly, it has cost lives as well. -- So many lives. Sometimes there is a problem caused by a single pop-up but that is not the case here and there have been years if not decades to conscious if not decades to conscious decisions leading to culpability and, as you move ahead with this inquiry, it is right that those culpable are held directly to account.

I welcome government opening discussions with Fujitsu. At opening discussions with Fujitsu. At this stage, we cannot work out the quantum of the compensation that quantum of the compensation that they owe us but can the government give assurance that should Fujitsu or anyone else who is culpable in
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:53
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble Lord for the questions and he asks about cultural issues and I think that we all understand just how appalling the post office has been run over many post office has been run over many years to allow this scandal and given the increasing amount of evidence provided to leadership in the post office. We are taking steps to address this and there is no new leadership in the post office and the green paper gives us the opportunity to revisit what it is that we want from a post office which ought to remain a vital part of UK life in communities, on the high Street, I'm providing small business opportunities for many people.

It has a huge opportunity and this is a huge reset that will take place. We are committed to maintaining it as a strong and accessible network and I should have mentioned that the noble Lord asked about the size but it is our intention that the overall size and shape would remain the same. My noble friend is right about the cultural issues and, for us, there are other issues going forward and the key thing is to make sure that the postmasters and post mistresses play a crucial role and we have not listened, even though they know what works, we really have not listened to them and I am confident that, as the consultation goes forward, the post office will be all the better.

My noble friend asked about the technology and I should say that we are working to replace the Fujitsu at pace, as quickly as we can. This is based on a learning approach and we are working to make sure the replacement is done in a robust system and the transformation is very much ensuring that the hard work purchased will be used for devices across the network and the software that was developed will be used for the services.

We have got to get the technology right. There is money going into it. The important thing is we listen to those people at the heart of it, the postmasters and mistresses.
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
On the opening day of committee, it's always good to start with discussion about the basis of the bill and the principles that form bill and the principles that form the fundamentals of planning and infrastructure Bill. The reason is that the policy is explained in the explanatory notes. Critical infrastructure must have faster and more certain consenting orders. Local planning committees are to be modernised to provide more certainty. Nature recovery requires, the not to say, a more strategic approach.

Finally, the bill intends to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure. It is accepted, certainly by those on these benches, that the country has failed to build vital infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective way. All will accept the urgent need for more housing, especially for housing with a social What is streamlining to the Government maybe seen a stream rolling by the community and what are seen as modernising, planning, may well be seen as the removal of democratic decision making and accountability.

What is seen as a strategic approach for recovery may well be seen as an unacceptable relegation of the value and important nature to our community. Hence this amendment, in my name, which seeks to clarify the purpose by careful definition of the language used. Now, the Noble Lord hunt has amended the original amendment by not using present participles, at least on the surface, enhancing the purpose by emphasising their practical application. And I look forward to the noble Lords explanation of various amendments.

The first purpose in the amendment tabled by myself is to accelerate delivery. It is how that is achieved that requires careful consideration. The detailed arguments will be rehearsed in later groups, but acceleration should not and must not achieved by the exclusion of the voices of communities. There will be a full sea economy as communities affected are able to mobilise quickly and demand that their voice be heard. The pre-application process is essential in enabling those affected and the questions answered before the legal process begins.

The argument for continuing to engage and consult on the application stage in later amendments can be discussed in detail at that point. Equally, improving the planning process should enable democratic decision making for those applications that are either of the size or impact or generate a large number of objections, or that are not completely in line with the councils plan. These parameters should be decided by each individual council decided by each individual council and not subject to a centralising type.

There are already standards for the completion coming out and democratic decision making is not the problem it is made out to be. The third purpose is to support the change in recovery and the bill refers to a strategic approach, but what it in fact means is that potentially denuding an area of its biodiversity for development, NHS recovery concerning some considerable distance away from the sign and from those communities. No, that is not being strategic, it is deciding that the balance must always favour development at the cost of nature.

So, this clause is about seeking a better balance twin development and nature, between accelerating decision-making and community involvement and I am afraid having little trust in local and giving councillors the responsibility to be part of the solution to the needs of the country. The contention in this amendment is that it is both possible and necessary to create a better balance between the competing ambition of an infrastructure provision, housebuilding, and economic development on the one hand, and community involvement, democratic decision making and nature protection and enhancement on the other.

Changes do need to be made, there is an urgent need for more access, especially Susie social, our country's infrastructure is in desperate need of modernisation in a sustainable way that has an objective of minimising harm for both nature and community, but it must take place with people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and not despite them. I beg to move. Amendment proposed for close or insert the new clause is printed on the Marshall list. As an amendment to amendment one, amendment two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to amendment one, amendment two, Lord Hunt a Kingsley. I would like to thank the baroness for her amendment and let baroness for her amendment and let me say although I am seeking to amend her amendment I do very much
13:06
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
amend her amendment I do very much echo the point that she raised, it is very useful to have a debate about the principles. I mean I think she inferred the scope of the bill that is set out on the beginning of the bill is very dry and does not actually give the sense of what this is really all about and I also commend her perseverance in actually getting this amendment on the face of things, allowing us to debated, because I know that the House itself seems to frown on these in principle debates at the beginning of second reading, as I have found in trying to amend the bill myself, so it seems to me that she is absolutely right to identify that there are a lot of tensions and challenges in taking forward this agenda.

They are not easily solved, and sometimes we have to accept that there are going to be some trade-offs, and I think that obviously my main concern is to speed up energy infrastructure in order to get us to clean power and to net zero. I agree that balancing out the need for new homes and critical infrastructure with a planning consent process that demands public confidence, supports nature recovery, is absolutely right, but it seems to me that one of the big problems we have had at the moment that many well-meaning agencies, regulators, planning committees and campaigners have actually made it almost impossible to get the kind of investment we need in our energy infrastructure.

And clearly it would beef perverse of me to say that we should disregard the whole issue of nature preservation, environmental issues, in the charge of net zero, but equally, my Lords, many of those organisations concerned about the environment have actually impeded our real efforts to achieve net zero and, somehow, I think that we have to find a way through. I would just say to my Noble Friend the Minister she will be aware of the media speculation that her department is about to announce on these sessions in relation to part three, but I would just say that there are many Labour MPs who are absolutely committed to the growth agenda and who would be concerned if part three is watered down and that impedes progress on the growth agenda.

I would also say that it is my experience that whatever agreement may have been reached with some of the environmental organisations about the actions that they are going to take as a result of what the media are talking about in past agreements, my experience to the Lords is that they always pocket concessions at an early-stage and come back for more, so I do think that part three is going to be a very important discussion and I would also say that new Labour MPs will take a very close interest in the government's continued commitment to the growth agenda and I do not need to say much more about the issues of energy infrastructure, the Environmental Audit Committee Commons in 2024, concluded that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing electricity, the National Grid one spent £30 billion over the next few years to upgrade our electricity network.

They need to have confidence that the system is not going to obstruct them in the way that it has for so many years in the past. It is not just energy. There was a recent report by the Council on Geostrategy which basically indicated that since planning system is one of the primary barriers to efficient infrastructure characterised by an overly complex and burdensome framework. Developers facing extensive requirements and documentation and a compelling application for the lower attempts at almost 260,000, what a waste of energy.

Does anyone think that this is anything other than a risk averse exercise by the myriad regulators we have who seem to have lost any sense of common sense when it comes to this, even size will see, as you will see, Baroness Coffey will know that I have a great affection for, their impact assessment ran to 24,608 and you also then have to go through a justification process as well. This is all a complete waste of time and effort, and somehow we need to have confidence as this bill goes through we are going to see a really streamlined impact, so, my Lords, just one other issue I would raise, the OBR reports, the recently reported, there have been a lot of problems about the public finances, but for me, one of the most significant points about it and it is that they refer to this legislation and the housebuilding ambitions for the Government, which I applaud, and I actually reckon that 0.2% GDP will grow as a result of these planning reforms and all I would say is that in this current situation that we are in terms of the public finances, that is something we have held onto and my amendment merely seeks, takes all the characteristics that the noble the characteristics that the noble Baroness put forward, but it does, in the end, put growth at the top of the agenda and think that we need to send a very powerful message to the regulators and all the agencies that have really obstructed progress in this country for so long and they may need to get that growth is another aim of this.

I think that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do beg to move my amendment. In the subsection after the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the subsection after the purpose of this act is to insert accelerate the delivery of new
13:13
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
accelerate the delivery of new critical infrastructure. As an amendment to amendment two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment three, Baroness Scott. My Lords, festival, can I declare my interest to the Vice President of my interest to the Vice President of the Local Government Association and I thank the noble Baroness Lady I thank the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock for bringing forward this clause, but, as we have said, it allows us to focus on the allows us to focus on the Governments stated intent, specifically as an overarching vision to enable the House to support the development of critical infrastructure.

While we welcome infrastructure. While we welcome this amendment, we, on these benches, believe that it can and it must be strengthened. The Government must be strengthened. The Government has committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but as things million new homes, but as things currently stand, that target is undeliverable and this bill in its present form does little to change present form does little to change that fundamental reality. This bill does not move the dial in enhancing does not move the dial in enhancing development across the country.

In development across the country. In 2019, the Conservative party moved to deliver one million additional homes over the course of that parliament by 2024 before the general election we delivered on that promise. If this legislation is that promise. If this legislation is truly intended to unlock housebuilding, then that ambition must be explicit in the purpose of this clause. Only by doing so can we measure the bills effectiveness against the government's target and hold it to account, both in your Lordships house and in The Other Place.

That is precisely why I have tabled an amendment to amendment two to include the government's goal of delivering 1.5 million homes on the face of the bill. My Lords, in this House, we are united in the view that this country needs more homes. Housing unlocks opportunity, it enables labour markets mobility, allows young people to move forward with their lives, and removes the key barrier to productivity. But quantity must be matched by quality. New homes must be well designed and are sensitive to local character and I trust the Noble Lady the Minister will agree with that point.

But if this bill is Government legislative vehicle for delivering this then that ambition must be stated clearly and unambiguously. We must support the government's stated aim and the ambition must be backed by a credible plan, a meaningful partnership, and the active involvement, as we have heard, of local communities. And this brings me to the principle of localism and We welcome the inclusion of engagement under section D of the clause proposed by the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock.

Local matters, not only as a democratic principle but as a democratic necessity, we must build the right homes in the right places while preserving community cohesion. That's why we brought forward the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, to improve the consenting process and strengthen local control, giving communities the power to shape their own development priorities. That act made its purpose clear. Local democracy matters. When people can see the shape and the effect of development, whether through affordable, infrastructure improvement or environmental safeguards, public engagement grows and delivery becomes more achievable.

Part two of that act sought to empower communities to make local decisions for local people. That was our approach. We did not simply talk about localism, we legislated for it. That is why we support sub section D, which rightly promotes greater community acceptability. Part one of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was guided by a clear set of missions. Ambitions to build and level up which were explicitly stated in the chapters title. We acted on those missions.

So I ask the noble Baroness the Minister, when was the last time we heard of any mention of her government's missions? Do they have any? This epitomises, in our view, the lack of cohesion in the Government's cohesion in the Government's approach. Purpose clause can help the government focus on their plans by clearly articulating the bill's rationale and its ambitions, something that is essential if the legislation is to succeed. A purpose clause will help Minister remain mission driven. Success will not just be measured by how many homes are built but also where they are built.

We are deeply concerned on this side of the House that the current model of strategic planning is being used to displace urban housing need into rural areas. This is just misguided. It is unfair. Especially given the steep housing targets now being placed on rural authorities. We must protect the unique character of our historic religions and ensure that the homes we need are built where the real demand lies. And I urge the Minister to think again and reconsider the urban rural balance of housing targets.

We support mandatory targets but they must be the right targets in the right places. The Bill is not just about housing. It is also covers, quite rightly, critical infrastructure. Key to improving the supply side of our economy. When the current Chancellor took office, she made a political choice to cancel a number of infrastructure projects that would have strengthened this economy. Instead she redirected funding towards public sector pay. That decision revealed, we believe, her priorities and it underlines the need for a clear, long-term vision in this country for infrastructure.

Finally, I turned to subsection C of the purpose clause, which seeks to ensure this Bill supports nature through more effective development and restoration. -- Nature recovery. This is particularly relevant to part three of the Bill, which is prompted widespread concern. A remarkable coalition, including the National trust, the NFU, the RSPB, the Royal life trust, the CLA and the CPRE have all voiced serious reservations. Even potential beneficiaries of these reforms have expressed unease. As drafted, part three risks weakening vital environmental protections at a time when we should be strengthening them.

Rather than addressing what is not working, it should introduce... It introduces new uncertainties and potentially new problems. The proposed nature recovery fund must not become a vehicle for administrative overheads or a centralised pot disconnect from local need. Yet as drafted, there is no guarantee that the money will remain local, no clear commitment to green infrastructure and no adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. These are serious omissions. Moreover, environmental delivery plans are capped at just 10 years. But many habitats and species cannot simply be moved or recreated within such a short timescale.

We also risk treating irreplaceable natural capital as disposable... As disposables. Even the Government's own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has been clear. These proposals would represent a regression in the protections established by the environmental act. To quote directly, "Aiming to improve environmental outcome overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species." That is the crux of the matter, laudable intentions are not just enough.

As drafted, part three stands in direct contradiction to subsection 3 of the proposed purpose clause. Additionally, on these benches we are not clear what problem part three is trying to fix. Instead it is implanting more procedures, structures and processes, without pinpointing the issues it seeks to resolve stop and soul. We throughout the committee stage will raise several vital issues to protect our environment. To unlock housebuilding and to enhance infrastructure. And I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords as we work our way through this Bill and consider ways, through this Bill and consider ways,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe, to improve it. I beg to move. Amendment proposed as an amendment to a member two, after infrastructure insert thereby infrastructure insert thereby supporting the Government's target of building 1.5 million safe and of building 1.5 million safe and livable homes in England by the end of the Parliament will stop --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament. I would like to congratulate
13:23
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to congratulate Baroness Pinnock on achieving the first amendment for debate. I echo first amendment for debate. I echo many of her comments and those of my noble friend, Baroness Scott. I greatly enjoyed the Lord Hunt contribution, it is great to see in this new position. We very much enjoyed working with him whilst he was on the Frontbench, we look forward to working with him in his new place. Thank you. My concern is not that I don't want to see critical infrastructure or the housing that we need, particularly as the noble Baroness Pinnock said in rural areas.

I would actually propose to add a E to her existing amendment one and that would be to protect the countryside. From overdevelopment and also to protect and promote food security. And I believe that should go through to the heart of this Bill. I was delighted to see the CPRE this morning, on Farming Today, obviously an early start, mention the protection they would like to see of affordable home. I think the noble Lady mentioned or they mention and everything -- mentioned in the briefing that the current definition of affordable home is not an accurate one should be revisited.

The question to the noble Lady the Minister, I look forward to collaborating with through the passage of the Bill, if this is something the government is minded to do. The plea that CPRE makes, which I think is appropriate to amendment one, tickly new little ASDE, which I may bring forward at report stage if this amendment is brought back. -- Particularly new little E. In protecting the countryside they would like a commitment from the Government and I wonder if this is something the noble Lady the Minister would agree to, to use brownfield land first? In the CPRE's view, England has space for 1.2 million homes on previously developed land.

The benefit of building in this area is that these homes would close to jobs, schools and transport connections. They would regenerate town centres and local communities and they would protect green spaces and farmland from development. My concern is that without such an amendment as a little one he to protect countryside and food security. -- Little one E. We risk trampling over the countryside and green fields in a mad dash to old houses at pace. The CPRE also say, quite rightly, that there is a role for planning.

As a one-time member of the other place, I always used to insist on the constituency, if there was a development that looked to be wildly unpopular with a village or a rural community, I urge the developers to meet at the earliest opportunity with the parish councils, before the development got into the public domain. I believe that should also be shared by the CPRE, clear role for local planning committees in the context of this Bill but also that rural parish councils will be cherished and strengthened.

Without that, we are actually removing grassroots democracy. I very much enjoyed the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock's remarks about the environmental recovery program, where often it is at some distance from the actual damage that is being done. And I think... I have seen instances... I hope that if part three is to remain, that it might contain such issues as what was achieved successfully, the pilot project in rural North Yorkshire, of the slow the flow side scheme at Pickering, where we have effectively protected the downstream from having not just a major reservoir, but a small reservoir.

And the construction of funds -- buns and other projects to so the close, chopping down trees, growing trees in appropriate places. It is that time of unimaginative nape -- that type of an imaginative nature solution... That both achieve flood resilience and flood defences but also not contribute to flooding going forward. So I hope the Government might be mindful of protecting the countryside and protecting farmland for food security that is so needed but also in strengthening the grassroots democracy in the way that I suggested.

suggested.
13:28
Lord Mawson Portrait Lord Mawson (Crossbench)
-
-
... Sympathetic to these amendments but I'm also very sympathetic to what Government is trying to achieve in terms of getting things built. And my colleagues and I have been at the other end of this telescope in communities trying to build things and get things done. We are now a year 41. And probably nearly 1,000 projects in some very small, some like the Olympics became quite big. And you get a perspective from practice on all that. That might be helpful to this kind of discussion.

Because we have become across many years ago the challenge between what we call the two these, democracy and we call the two these, democracy and delivery. -- 2D. And what I saw on housing estates many years ago, with an East End group of people, where everything was failing constantly, that actually local people were fed the teeth of endless chatter, endless promises by councillors and all sorts of other things and nothing seemed to happen. And we only really became credible in...

And trust began to emerge when we delivered our first nursery for local parents and their children that made a difference to their lives and began to take over a derelict park where people were injecting every day. A completely dysfunctional situation. It might just be worth me showing one or two things why we made the long view certain choices in our life. Because when I arrived in Tower Hamlets at that time in the early 80s, it was profoundly dysfunctional. The schools did not succeed, the roads did not get swept, 97% of everything was run by the state and it was a terrible mess.

And the little problem for me as a local clergyman, arriving in a run-down church with 12 oh people sitting where they had always sat in a 200 seater church and it looked as though the dead have been carried out and no one noticed and I had £400 in the bank, is what on earth do you do about this? Answer, I have not got the faintest idea. As a Yorkshireman my initial instinct was do a runner now, it is all too much for me, particularly when Philip, the Jewish head teacher across the road at the primary school, was retiring early because it had become too much for him.

And I thought this is me in a few years times, falling off my trolley. And now 29 years of age. So we were grappling with these problems. Our first engagement of trying to do something about it was with the Liberals, they were not Liberal Democrats then, it was uncle Peter Hughes was the leader of the council at that point he created nine neighbourhoods. And Peter was a very good guy. And we spent time working together, with his offices, on how we might take control of the derelict park behind the church buildings and manage it.

And we spent six months putting all of that model together and we were just about their and there was a local election. And the Liberal Democrats lost the election and the Labour Party won the election. And because seven neighbourhoods had in a liberal idea, the Labour Party decided to remove that structure and to create seven committees. Our first experience of trying to get anything done with all the churn, no one is to blame, public sector and One of the things that we became involved in trying to build an early involved in trying to build an early days was a set of nurseries that began we ended up growing a whole range of relationships with families, actually, that began to trust us, very vulnerable families involved in welfare issues, health issues, all the rest of it.

And yet there came a point at your 10 when Tower Hamlets Council then in that form decided that actually it was going to pull all of the nursery care in-house, I think to protect pensions and local Government, all those relationships that we had spent many years connecting it to health began to get destroyed and even today that is having implications. One of the reasons in the program that we started with the business community originally across the road is we found that they were honest, reliable, consistent, not subject to this kind of churn.

And we began to develop what has become known as the social enterprise movement and the business logic behind that. And when it came to involving residents, we began to recognise it is very easy to sit on Representative committee saying that you represent the community and blame the council or the councillors or anyone else, easily, anyone could do that. We began to say that is easy. Are you actually now going to work with us on building a housing company that takes over some of the housing in Poplar and builds a proper social business model that actually starts to connect housing, education, health and place making? So you're going to learn through doing stuff rather than complaining and chattering about stuff.

We started to build Poplar. That company today 28 years later owns 10,000 properties. It owns 34% of the land in Poplar. It has bought hundreds of millions of pounds of investment and has about £2 billion investment program in play at the moment where local residents have become seriously involved in issues of waste management, how you put it underground, how you move the dustbins, the size of balconies, bankers, money, all the rest of it. There is a great opportunity in the bill and what the Government is trying to achieve to really start to rethink some of the stuff that really is not working.

To be fair, I have a lot of time to the Liberal Democrats and I worked with a lot of parties and I noticed the Noble Lord as their, one of our little challenges, he very carefully helped me with the bill with the first integrated working model to engage with a little local difficulty and the Secretary of State took hold of the problem and helped us solve it, not every minister did, but he did. I share the thoughts that this is a I share the thoughts that this is a very challenging matter.

I think the issues are complicated. It is an opportunity for innovation, and I do not see enough talk on innovation in this legislation. I do encourage the Government to persist with delivery issues because actually they have been democratically elected. They do have a responsibility to build some of these homes. Yes, we need to make together on these issues, but I share with you the full we now live in an entrepreneurial age. Our children and our residents we found 97 businesses globally in housing estates want actually they do not want to just become involved in a committee with a black person and a woman and very condescending stuff such the table talking about things they have never actually done.

They might actually want to become involved in the very delivery of the things themselves. That is a great opportunity, I suggest, for this bill. And it also opens a conversation about community engagement and what it is in the modern world. And how do local residents become participants rather than just talkers, spectators, and Of one representative group or another. I think that is the space we are in. And I certainly am willing to work with this Government or any Government, actually, to work on that space because there is a deaf need for innovation and I have shared with you this final point, I want to sit down together because one of the things that worries me at the moment is I can hear them quite rightly wanting to move as the health service out of hospitals into communities and get up streaming the prevention.

We have been leading that agenda for 30 years now. That's the right direction of travel, they are in the right space, but it is one thing to want it, it is another thing to do it. And actually that aspiration in the health service is not connected with this conversation we are having. Try to have a conversation with the Minister about this. I think that we all need to hear this conversation. There is a real opportunity to join the dots here, but can we have that conversation, please?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a practising environmental law with range of clients affected on planning regulations in various planning regulations in various different ways. Also, as the noble secretary director for the South group property developer and of course special projects land motor course special projects land motor and of the author of the dependent review of literature review
13:37
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
review of literature review challenges to projects, more of which we will have later in the proceedings. I like the purpose clauses in legislation. They are helpful because, in time, the courts will have to deliver revisions of what will become the act in due course and if we do not spell out what the purpose is, the courts will have to divide that, so it would be for better to have the Department for better to have the Department control on that, if that is, it is not essential, but it is certainly nice to have, if that is to be done, I certainly can't improve on Baroness Pinnock's amendment as proposed to be amended by the Noble Lord Hunt and bite my Noble Friend Baroness Scott.

Have a degree of nervousness, however, about this bill having its own purpose in that without having the overall status of planning as advocated by the noble Lords Institute and proposed in the noble Ladies amendment 132. I do not agree with all the wording of that, but that is another point for today's purposes. This bill, once enacted, would be part of the wider framework of planning acts, of which there are many, and if it has its own stated purpose that the purpose of planning is not stated, though it is, to my mind, a potential mismatch, that could be remedied by having an overall purpose of planning which would have a number of advantages, for example, in the context of the increased role of planning officers, they would have that guiding beacon, that guiding light of pressure placed on planning officers by members which is something that does happen and is a risk that it may happen to a great extent, some of the other provisions of the bill find themselves to the law.

I would advocate consideration of the article proposed as outlined in clause 132. I emphatically agree with Lord Hunt about the proportionality. We have to put an end to the days of environmental statements being delivered in the hands, no one will read them, apart from the people who are paid huge fees to produce them and review them. And I declare I kind of interest in that respect, of course, but environmental statements, the EIA process is largely intended to help the public understand it.

It is consultation and taking into account food consultation. No member of the public is going to read it, it is simply not going to happen, so portion later it would be hugely helpful in that respect. There are recent sets of DCO examining expect us asking 2000+ questions. I shall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be the best of intentions, but if we aim for protection, we will not achieve anything. I just wanted to ask him from his experience does he think it possible experience does he think it possible to legislate how regulators to use

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their commonsense? I have tried with my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have tried with my proportionality clause that we will come to later in the proceedings. That is the best I can do so far. That is the best I can do so far. Tweaking it so that if it works or Tweaking it so that if it works or find its way to the statute books the Secretary of State has the ability to publish statutory guidance on how to give effect to it, but I think that if it, but I think that if proportionality was spelt out in neon lights in legislation, again to neon lights in legislation, again to send the message, echoing what the send the message, echoing what the noble Lords subset, sending a message to everyone, consultees, consultants, applicants, decision- makers, the courts, the public, then makers, the courts, the public, then that could be more and to my mind that is a really fundamental way of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

furthering this bill. My Lords, I declare my interest as the chief engineer working here as the chief engineer working here and I wanted to support the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock and the Noble
13:41
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Lady Pinnock and the Noble Lord Hunt's as set out the purchasers of the bill. And in particular what the Noble Lord Hunt said about the growth at the front and centre. And I think it is important to set out a bit of the product context here because this does go all the way back to 2008 because in the decades before 2008 we have that consistent 2.3% labour productivity growth over many, many years. But since then that productivity growth has fallen off a cliff, only around half a % per annum growth since then.

And that then feeds through into flat or real wages, so 2% growth in real wages for decades, they have been flat since 2008, which has led to all of those blooms with debt, with tax, with the NHS, even the political problems and frustrations of those that are being left behind. And, of course, it is a complex feature. The reasons behind that growth. But inability to old enough productive infrastructure to invest in that is very high up on that list, whether that is the new infrastructure to bring down the price of electricity, new transport infrastructure with all of the benefits that come with that or digital infrastructure, and we can contrast what is going on elsewhere in the world with to expand on what the Noble Lord Hunt said about the role of electricity, China has gone through 6,000 to 10,000 TW hours in their generation in the last 10 years.

Whereas our electricity generation has been flat or even declining slightly with 300 TW hours. And that, because has many of the implications, the cost that is around four times that of the United States. And certainly back to growth as well. So, looking back at the government's targets, where the amount of infrastructure would meet that target is far below what we would need to heed to get to 2030, and, of course, that is going to have an effect on net zero, on energy security, as well.

In the planning system, my Lords, is at the heart of this. And this is the key issue of the review and environment issues that are being addressed to some extent as part of this bill, but I think that circling back to growth and critical infrastructure as well as houses, so that purpose, clause, setting that out is vitally important with all of the benefits that will bring for net zero and the environment for energy security and resolving the bigger issues of Government spending and quality of life.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment one
13:45
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment one in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock and I think her for Lady Pinnock and I think her for that many approaches. I was not able to speak second reading, but I have an interest going back to the 1980s in Government on this. And one of my most rewarding experiences was as Chair of the built environment committee before I joined the Frontbench and I not sure it is strictly relevant but I enjoyed with my brother and sister in a field of agricultural use.

I think it is always good to start the debate on an act as the Noble Lord Hunt was saying. Although unlike my Noble Friend, have some doubts about actually adding such a clause to the bill. This is because it is so very difficult to get it right in and ever-changing world. And I think such clauses tend to lead to more, not less, legal argy-bargy. I do, however, agree with my Noble Friend Lord Banner that the environmental impact assessment would signify out impact assessment would signify out If we were to have such a purpose clause, I think it needs to include an explicit reference to the importance of growth.

And above all, to achieving a reduction in the delays, in the planning system and in the construction of housing infrastructure. It seems to me that year after year these delays have got worse and not better under all political parties. Speeding up the system would provide a one off growth spurt, which nearly all of us across the House believe is urgently needed. In trying to achieve this, I have a question to the Minister. Can she share with the House the things in the Bill that she believes will hurry things up, such as the reduction in involvement of planning committees in less contentious schemes, less judicial review, we hope, fewer statutory consultee is, investment in planning expertise and the ability of councils to fix planning fees at a level which helps them to provide a more efficient service? And can she also set out those that, albeit she believes them to be needed, will slow things down? Especially in achieving our housing, infrastructure and energy objectives.

That might include the new spatial development strategies, new spatial development strategies, new arguments over CPOs, the sort of elaborate processes on the environmental delivery plan, outlined by my noble friend Baroness Scott. What is the net impact on speed, given the Government's manifesto commitment to cut redtape? I have got a real concern that the need for speed and streamlining will be outgunned by other objectives, including amendments favoured by Members of this House, growth and all that that enables a government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do will be the loser. I will rise briefly to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will rise briefly to speak mainly to give my register of interest are now before we get to interest are now before we get to the meat of the committee stage. Namely that I am a director and beneficial owner of... Which builds one-off bespoke homes, amongst other functions. A non-executive director functions. A non-executive director of... That builds through... Finance of... That builds through... Finance and other bits of stuff that is on the register,... I'm also a non- director that delivers affordable home without any because the public home without any because the public funds and also her strategic adviser to inspired solutions, that also deliver affordable home without recourse to public funds.

That said, I'm endlessly very briefly now I'm endlessly very briefly now because my noble friend will not forgive me if I did not mention it, all of the wordy things that everybody has discussed are not functions of the act. -- Worthy things. They're consequential on the act being pushed through, the function of the act is to regulate function of the act is to regulate between private property ownership and perceived public good or public harm.
13:50
13:50
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
because there is a trend that has been happening in a variety of been happening in a variety of aspects of case law, which then makes other aspects of trying to compile the law rather complicated. And leading to some of the adjustments which I believe the government is seeking to secure. But government is seeking to secure. But I think there is an element when we get into talk about judicial review and what Government is really intended, I appreciate it is the noble Lord Hunt who has tabled some noble Lord Hunt who has tabled some rather drastic amendments, I would suggest.

Not surprised, I'm led to believe it is possible that it believe it is possible that it was... Who gave evidence in the other house about saying the review... Sorry, my noble friend, Lord Myners review did not go far enough. -- Lord Myners. I think enough. -- Lord Myners. I think there are a few things here, my noble friend Baroness Royall hit the noble friend Baroness Royall hit the nail on head, what is really going to change? -- Baroness Neville- Rolfe. The other thing we're thinking about and why Baroness Pinnock's amendment is right, at the moment there is nowhere in this Bill that really ties everything together about making sure that we do about making sure that we do actually get more homes built.

There is nowhere in the Bill at the moment that ties together about improving the natural environment. And we need to make sure in this consideration, I suggest to your Lordships, that we have to try make sure that is happening. I also wanted to rise at this point because in the closing speech of the second reading, the Minister said that councils have a lot of powers. And I would be interested to understand what amendments may come in at this stage, if the Minister could give us an indication, in order to achieve the objectives that they say that this Bill is trying to achieve.

Frankly, why are we not seeing potentially certain powers been granted to the government to speed up housing? Not just planning permission but the actual completion. Appreciate... I can't remember if it section 90, 91 or 94 in the Town and Country Planning Act that allows councils to issue completion notices. I do recall, because I was the whip in the Commons on the 2015 infrastructure act and I think I had to deal with four Ministers, so good luck to the whips here on the Frontbench in coordinating all of that stop but for me there were powers that which the government took when councils the government took when councils were being slow, it was not necessarily...

But they were not keeping two timetables, the decisions could be made by Ministers. And I do not think that happened very often under the previous Conservative administration. But here we seem to be going with a sledgehammer to crack a NUT. When why is it that we are not saying Ministers take... Use the powers that already have to achieve a lot of what it says it wants to do but is now putting this legislation in place. That is why I welcome the amendment by noble Baroness Penick because it gives us an opportunity to say what is this Bill really going to do? Is it going to achieve the aims of what is there? And I would just make a plea through the Minister to try make sure that bill managers actually do update the parliamentary website with all the different things that they said they would write to.

In fact, Parliament is still awaiting the promise made by the Minister in the other place, he made it I think on 29 April, to write about one of the clauses we are debating today. No letter has ever been issued, to my knowledge, certainly not on the Bill website and it has certainly not been deposited in the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is a further plea in terms of process. But it is vital we need to make sure... Can I just inform the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just inform the noble Lady that the letter did go out yesterday, on some of the issues yesterday, on some of the issues that were raised at the drop-in. So she may have missed that in her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she may have missed that in her inbox but it did go out yesterday. Sorry, I appreciate that and I have not seen in my inbox, I'm have not seen in my inbox, I'm actually referring to minister actually referring to minister Penicuik -- Minister Penny Cook, in the Commons committee stage made a commitment right, I'm not sure commitment right, I'm not sure that's ever been issued, is certainly not available to members of this House, it be great if as a general approach we try make sure general approach we try make sure that is there.

Overall I think this Bill needs to be massively strengthened to make sure it does strengthened to make sure it does what it says on the tin. And that we will actually get the outcome that will actually get the outcome that my noble friend on the Frontbench, Baroness Scott, has put forward in terms of amendment three, that we will actually get on with making will actually get on with making sure Mo -- more homes are actually delivered the people of this country and also for other aspects of the and also for other aspects of the infrastructure that I recognise this country desperately needs.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

country desperately needs. We need to move to consider the statement, as the Minister delivering the statement must attend Grand Committee for a debate that she will commence before this group finishes. Whilst unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment do adjourn and we will return to it after the statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Questions on a statement made in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, 14th July on UK France migration cooperation. cooperation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cooperation. My Lords, illegal migration is one of the most challenging issues we face today. More than 21,000 people have used small boat crossings to illegally breach our borders this year so far. That borders this year so far. That number is up 56% from the same period last year. 78% of people polled by YouGov think the polled by YouGov think the Government handling is bad, as of 7 July, 57% of poll voters said that immigration and asylum was the immigration and asylum was the single most important issue facing the country.

And it is against this
13:56
13:57
None Portrait Statement: UK-France migration cooperation (around 2pm) Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-

some extent this step the government, which is a reflection of the fact that they appreciate the gravity of the situation and are gravity of the situation and are making attempt to do with it. -- Border spell. We on these benches want to stop small boat crossings, we have to recognise this is a small step in the right direction. step in the right direction. However, it would be remiss of me to let the Government get away with a let the Government get away with a statement without some questions from our side.

And it may be that the intention behind this agreement the intention behind this agreement is to create some sort of deterrent and I'm sure the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm that this indeed is the government's that this indeed is the government's intention. I do not wish to be condescending but I assume the plan with such a low rate of return is with such a low rate of return is not itself designed to get the numbers down in any meaningful sense. And the noble Lord the sense.

And the noble Lord the Minister said last week in Bill Committee that it takes time and I agree with that. But I'm afraid that agree with that. But I'm afraid that it is obvious to me that what we have before us is not a deterrent. have before us is not a deterrent. And if noble Lords permit me, I will run through the numbers which will run through the numbers which will explain why this is the case. Under the agreement, the government will return one in every 17 illegal immigrants arriving in the UK.

44,000 illegal migrants have arrived in the UK by small boats since Labour took power last year. And this year alone, more than 21,000 -- 21,170 migrants have the Channel, a 56% rise on the same period in 2024. Under this plan, the government will still allow 94% of these illegal immigrants to stay in the United Kingdom. If you were in Calais considering making the crossing over to the UK in a small boat, would a 94% success rate be a deterrent to you? I put it to the noble Lord that with these odds, the overwhelming likelihood is that people will bank on being in the 94% and not the 6% of people who face being turned to France.

And then of course there is the question of what happens to those in the very unlucky 6% who do return to France. What is to stop them from simply trying again. Can the noble Lord the Minister confirmed to us now that no one coming over on a small boat will be one of the 6% who are returned previously? And if people are simply able to try again, what is the point in returning them at all? Can the noble Lord tell us what the French will do with those who have been returned? I can't imagine the French taxpayer will want to foot the Bill of housing those whom we have returned.

And finally, can the noble Lord the Minister please clear up this question of whether the European Union will approve this plan? There's no certainty the French can fulfil their side of the bargain without EU consent. It is obvious several southern European states are getting ready to push Rijkaard against this agreement. -- Push back hard. This discussion is entirely academic unless there is an clarity about whether it will come to fruition at all. It is clear to us that the only way to properly address this problem is to remove every single illegal arrival as they get here.

Either to their country of origin or to 1/3 country. That will be a real deterrent. We saw that approach work in Australia about 10 years ago. The Government inherited a deterrent of this magnitude when they came into office. We and the government did all the heavy lifting, the plan was ready to go, all the Home Secretary had to do was PESCO she and the Prime Minister cancelled the scheme just days before it was due to start. As a result, we now see record numbers crossing.

-- Was press go. We recognise the fundamental truths which the government seem intent on ignoring. The first is that supply in this matter is driven by demand. The second is that supply will always try to meet demand, even under absolute prohibition. As I mentioned last week at Bill Committee, the 18th amendment to the US constitution, which I'm sure noble Lords will agree was quite a bit stronger than anything the government are proposing, yet that failed. Third and final truth is that if you want to stop supply, you need to stop demand.

The simple fact of the matter is while there are thousands of people willing to pay massive sums of money to come to the UK illegally, there will be criminal gangs ready to take the money and get them here. And unless we deter them from coming, the gangs will not be smashed and the numbers will continue to rise. 6% simply will not cut it, really 100% removals deterrent. Beyond the fundamental criticism of the government plan there are many further procedural issues that arise from the agreement as it has been set up by the Government.

It is clear that every one of the 50 people selected to be returned to France would have the opportunity to launch lengthy costly legal challenges against this decision. It is also clear that the French have legal challenges and hopes of being waded through... Hoops that have been waded through could simply refuse to accept whoever we try to send back. I have said this is a step in the right direction and pull my criticism of the government today I do mean that what I feel most of all at this stage is we cannot afford to be ambiguous.

If we have a system which sends about one in 17 people and which allows all of those people to launch a legal challenge against this, all being returned to a safe third country 21 miles way, does this not send the message that the Government is not particularly serious about addressing this issue. I believe that the Government many noble Lord across the House recognise the seriousness of the situation. The numbers we have seen this year are in short, totally out of control.

This issue overwhelmingly concerns people in the United Kingdom and I'm pleased Government is trying to get a handle on this. Getting the French to do anything after the £770 million we have given them is welcome. However I do not believe this plan will achieve what the government is intending, simply it is too soft and sends far too few people back, is right for delay and vexatious claims, all at the taxpayers expense. The number simply do not add up. We cannot cheer and support our plan which sends back 6% of arrivals as a success and the In doing so, he and his Government need to introduce a solution.

I unafraid what we have before us today will not help us and I think the Noble Lord and the Government are aware of that.
14:03
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I start by giving I've registered interest, I am supported by the organisation, we welcome the principle behind this deal for two reasons. Firstly, because it undermines the model in the way that it is used and secondly it creates an additional safe route. On these benches we commend the Government for introducing this as a pilot because it tests a new policy and develops it to make sure that it works based upon experience and evidence and bringing the public with you rather than making huge promises on an untested promise policy that uses public trust, spent a lot of taxpayer money and exhausts civil service and parliamentary time, we can think of the scheme, of course, as we referred to the Conservatives Rwanda policy.

Clearly there are many questions that sit behind this proposal before us, but since the Government is waking at pace for the Government to impose it I think the answer should now be available and I hope the Noble Lord will now tell me. The first one of this is quite clearly that the pilot will be limited in numbers initially to ensure that works operation, as I have always do so, just noble of the Minister agree that in order to provide both a viable alternative for asylum seekers as well as a deterrent to cross its small boats the scheme would need to be scaled up quickly? Those not in the pledge initially would add to a backlog of asylum claims and the process by which they are judged would need to be speeded up, so what progress has been made on the backlog of asylum claims in this country? Secondly, there will, undoubtedly, have to be a process of screening and selection of those to be returned to France.

Can the noble of the Minister confirm if integration detention will be used prior to removal to France, and, if so, if for the whole part of the period when they are in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, can the noble of the Minister confirm which aspects of existing legislation will be used to operate this pilot. Well elements of the Illegal Migration Act beat used, for example? Fourthly, returns of migrants to France will need to be swift in order to provide a real deterrent.

We'll migrants who are to be returned to France be able to challenge this decision? Well adequate legal advice be available as well as traditional to ensure the process is swift whilst also ensuring people can have their position considered. Fifthly, how will the Government ensure that migrants in northern France are informed about this scheme from trusted sources so that they are well aware of it in advance of choosing perhaps not to participate in the crossing. And sixthly, and finally, the process of accessing safe routes to the United Kingdom is one that has to be trusted by migrants.

What has the Government learned from schemes elsewhere in the world where providing a safe and significantly changed migrant behaviour devoted them from the regular safe routes. Undoubtedly, there will be many more questions as the pilot expands and moves forward, but, critically, at this point, these questions, I think, are what lies behind the acceptance that this is a potential for work and we wish it every success in that moving forward and that is why these questions are so important to be answered at this stage.
14:07
14:07
14:07
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
cautious welcome from his Majesty's Royal opposition who, it must be remembered, had 400 crossings in 2018 and had 40,000 crosses, 2018 and had 40,000 crosses, crossings, in 2023, and this is a crossings, in 2023, and this is a challenge and a problem which the previous Government relied on the previous Government relied on the Rwanda scheme which delivered £700 Rwanda scheme which delivered £700 million of costs projected further hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cost and returned under the of cost and returned under the scheme, precisely for people who they shadow Home Secretary would not they shadow Home Secretary would not acknowledge now and we are not acknowledge now and we are not forced to go accordingly, so in the broader security bill that we are securing in this House now I am very securing in this House now I am very pleased to have supported the cancellation and scrapping of the Rwanda scheme and the replacement with what I think are positive, with what I think are positive, constructive, concrete efforts, both in terms of the borders, security, in terms of the borders, security, command posts that the bodice bill brings in.

And the money we are using from the field Rwanda scheme to support the development of that scheme. Also, the international cooperation which is visible through the matters with France which are in this statement and, indeed, hot off the press, the new engagements with the German Republic to ensure that we cooperate with the German Government on similar issues accordingly. And as I say to the Noble Lord, it is not just the agreement on the transfer of 50 people in this pilot which is a pilot as I acknowledge and the Noble Lord acknowledges also, 50 people from a date in the very near future with a return basis and a proper return to the French authorities who the opposition asked what will they do and the French are an independent country, they will process them themselves, but the intention is, as I understand, for them to do so away from the northern French coast which will, again, assist in the ticket a challenge and, I hope, provide the deterrent, the salt evidently the Rwanda scheme did not, that thousands of people still crossed when the Rwanda scheme was in operation, but not just the 50 people per week that we are anticipating, which even if it only operated for one we could see 46 more people return and in the Rwanda scheme it also involves establishing a new French companion specialist officers of strong public were about to deal with action on French beaches and also it involves the French authorities agreeing to prevent boat launches before they reach the water and also it involves training for additional drone pilots to intercept and it involves support for maritime review instigated by the French and if I put that with the agreement today with the Germans which I think is worthwhile putting on the record as well, today the treaty has been signed by the Germans which increases cooperation amongst migrants, strengthening lower force movement and judicial cooperation, stamping and efforts for returns Germany is introducing a clarification to German legislation to facilitate irregular migration to the UK to be brought to Cabinet with a view to be adopted by the German Parliament before the end of this year.

There will be a stronger enforcement for law-enforcement policy and prosecution against criminal gangs and the regional partners of the Calais Group which is Belgium, Holland, France, and the UK, will be developing joint approaches with Germany to deal with these issues. I only put those things on the record because none of those things, not single one of those things have happened when the peak numbers of built crossings occurred under the previous Government. Not one of those things happened. Partly because of the Euroscepticism through the then Government, partly because the drive to do that was not there and all of the biscuits were in the Rwanda 10, which proved fruitless, so the Noble Lord, by all means, can be sceptical, critical, can ask questions, but for a while yet, he's going to have a record hanging around his neck that he is going to have to defend and which is not improved by the actions that he seems to think of today as being the limited action.

These instructions from a strong Government stop now, from a strong Government stop now, he has asked a number of questions around that, the European Union will make a judgement on that point and I believe that we have a legal basis for the agreement, we believe if it will be tested by anyone in the French and the British UK authorities are in the same page. The French will deal with the returns accordingly and we will view the pilot inappropriate way. And with the deterrence we have put in place, again, we will be accountable for the performance on these issues, but one year in office, the things I have mentioned today have been done by this Government are now bearing fruition and we will have to continue to press down on these matters over the next few years because the legacy that we have received is one of easy crossings, no action on criminal gangs, and allowing the figures to go out at the same time and this goes to the point that the Noble Lord has made, not dealing with asylum assessment, speedy asylum assessment, and speedy removals.

And I would just point again if we are going to talk about the record of the noble Lords Government and, indeed, hours, in the years since the election, 35,052 returns were recorded by this Government. That is a 13% increase on the same period under the previous Government. This includes 9115 enforced returns, an increase of 24% under the previous Government. The total return since July 5 last year of 5179 foreign national offenders is an increase of 14% under the previous Government. And 10,191 asylum related returns is an increase of 28% over the previous year by the previous Government.

No, those figures are going in the right direction, they are dealing with the issue, there are lots of challenges, I will never ignore the fact that there are lots of challenges, but the proportion on the Government and all those issues is one that I think that is one that should be welcomed by this House. No, the Noble Lord has raised eight number of questions which I will try and answer as best I can. Number one, he is absolutely right to say that this undermines the criminal gangs model, that is the purpose of it and I welcome the support and thank him for it.

And, again, imaginative suggestions from all sides of the House to help undermine criminal gangs is very much welcome. It is a pilot. We will monitor the pilot but, self- evidently, the pilot is designed to be expanded and in the event of expansion then we will look at both the continuing analysis of the people arriving and being returned to France and also the safe and legal amendments that will be open from France and this is one to be monitored and looked at in due monitored and looked at in due course.

And the asylum see offices and move to the system in a much quicker way and that means that the asylum claim is accepted they can be accepted as asylum seekers or refugees, if the claim is refused they can be returned as we are currently doing at the moment. They asked us about detention. And improving the attention because that is an important thing that claims are assessed and I will examine that point in detail and get back to him point in detail and get back to him Safe and legal row -- route is important, as he is mentioned, because of the time in discussion, I think I will leave this question and come back to him in writing, they are important points, but I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conscious of 20 minutes is up and I will want to let the backbenchers have their say. I declare an interest... I'm speaking in a personal capacity speaking in a personal capacity today. The noble Lord has given us a spirited defence of all the international actions that the international actions that the government is taking to try and battle this pernicious trade. Closer to home, internally, in terms of our domestic actions, he has been remarkably silent on President remarkably silent on President Macron's exhortation to our Macron's exhortation to our government to do more in domestic law, to challenge what happens here, not least our very lax labour not least our very lax labour standards and a large grey market, that brings so many people into such that brings so many people into such treacherous journeys to get here.

-- treacherous journeys to get here. -- That is the pull factor. Would he look at two things proposed by Sir Trevor Phillips, a member of his own Trevor Phillips, a member of his own party, one is digital ID cards, also proposed by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and rolling those out. The objections of 2006, I remember The objections of 2006, I remember them well here, are no longer as palpable as they were then on the part of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives at the time.

Because you can design the system very differently with technology now. And the second thing would be to tax remittances because the whole point of somebody coming and trying to work here is so they can improve things at home. Remittance has apparently gone up from 6 billion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

9 billion, so that will be a lucrative way of filling the black hole, I wonder if he would comment on those. The noble Lady raises a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady raises a very important point, which is on some of the pull factors and a legal grey market and black-market employment. market and black-market employment. -- Illegal grey market. She knows we have spent a lot of time in the have spent a lot of time in the Employment Bill, that is partly to ensure we do undertake those ensure we do undertake those standards and as a Home Office we are engaged in a very active program over the past six months certainly, on cracking down on illegal working on cracking down on illegal working and removing people who are found to be illegally working and taking be illegally working and taking action against individuals who have been involved in providing that illegal work.

I can supply figures to her after this discussion on the to her after this discussion on the success rates of those illegal success rates of those illegal actions. She mentions ID card. I was a minister in the Home Office, I have said many times in this House, have said many times in this House, when we had ID cards. That was crab either then coalition government. There are no plans to return to ID There are no plans to return to ID cards but self-evidently, we want to ensure we had biometric and other data before people are arriving in this country that data is collected this country that data is collected at a local level.

The question of remittance is one I will reflect on after this discussion today. But we have to ensure, from my perspective, that the pull factors are dealt with. But the key focus of the government is to get international cooperation, to smash the gangs that are dealing with the aftermath of some very big worldwide problems but exploiting people, selling them under false promises, putting their lives in danger and allowing people to enter illegally when we believe to enter illegally when we believe on an international basis we should have that cooperation to manage those pressures in a more positive and constructive way.

 I do not blame the noble Lord the Minister for slightly having a bit of fodder at our expense in this stage in the political cycle. I will caution though, given in this Government's first year the amount of people crossing the Channel has gone up by 40%. And when he eventually has to return to a proper deterrent scheme, it will be on these benches he receives the support he needs, not from elsewhere, I suspect, in the House. So I would just caution him, he may need our support later in the Parliament.

They are asking some specific questions about this game. In her statement to the House of Commons, the Home Secretary said the Commons, the Home Secretary said the Prime Minister and the French president have set out their expectation that that pilot will be operationalised, ghastly word but operationalised, in the coming operationalised, in the coming weeks. She was very unspecific about weeks. She was very unspecific about how many weeks, there is clearly a large difference between four weeks and 52 weeks, for example. And he give us a bit of clarity about the type of timescale there thinking about? Is it more like a months time or is it more like six months time? The second question is, and he referred to this, the Home Secretary referred to this, the Home Secretary said they will be trying a number of approaches, very sensible, to see what works.

But then they will want what works. But then they will want to scale up the numbers. What sort of timescale are they thinking about of timescale are they thinking about in terms of running the pilot? Because I think my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower was right. If the numbers remain very low, and I numbers remain very low, and I noticed the Minister sort of confirm the number 50 a week or did not reside from it, if it stays like that, it will be no deterrent at that, it will be no deterrent at all.

So unless the minute -- prime Ministers going to start the post quickly, wrap them up very quickly, this has absolutely no chance of deterring anybody.
14:21
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord. Can I just put him at ease. I'm not having a bit of fun with the previous government, I am just imploring the House to understand what the pressures were under the previous government. What the lack of action was, in my view, it is a political discussion... And how, as well as the border security Bill, the measures we have taken, with France, with Belgium, with Holland, with Germany and this last week with France in this agreement with President Macron and the Prime Minister are designed to do what I think the whole house has a shared objective on, which is to reduce the crossings, hold those criminals to account and to break their business account and to break their business model.

That is what we are trying to do. He asks when the scheme will do. He asks when the scheme will come into play. We plan to do this scheme by the summer. And the summer is a definitive date. I would suspect the next five to six weeks suspect the next five to six weeks is the proposal. But the summer is is the proposal. But the summer is our aim. We have not yet set a date to evaluate the pilots monitoring. But self-evidently, it is in the But self-evidently, it is in the interests of France, the UK and the people who are being trafficked to people who are being trafficked to smash those gangs as soon as possible and to ensure we provide an upscaling of that scheme as soon as upscaling of that scheme as soon as possible.

But I hope you will give a fair wind to what I think will still be a deterrent. And that we will be a deterrent. And that we will return to that poster recess and be able to be questioned and subject to able to be questioned and subject to scrutiny in September, which I regard as the early autumn and late summer. -- Post the recess.
14:23
14:23
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
both have come back with a negative response. It seems to me, talking to response. It seems to me, talking to allies about something that was done after World War II, which is after World War II, which is relevant to all of this, is worth doing and I hope the government will do that. But in broad terms, I would do that. But in broad terms, I would not resile from the fact that the Minister is having a go at all of this. And I'm quite supportive of this.

And I'm quite supportive of that. I am far from convinced that the European Union will be happy with it. For a variety of reasons. But I hope it works. But of course it has no impact whatsoever on it has no impact whatsoever on numbers, of the total increase in numbers, of the total increase in our population, which is the thing that we are studiously ignoring in this parliament and have been for 20 this parliament and have been for 20 years. Even on a good day, or a good week, we are still increasing our population by 10,000 people per population by 10,000 people per week.

In 2023, we were increasing week. In 2023, we were increasing our population by 23,000 people a week and nobody in the government or Parliament seems to join the dots between that, housing shortage, between that, housing shortage, health waiting lists and in fact a stagnant economy. So can the stagnant economy. So can the Minister say, and I will support him in any measure that he is taking and I welcome all of the ones he has taken with our European allies, I think they are small contributing parts.

But of course the Rwanda scheme never got off the ground so we will never know if it works. The fact is the gangs are not smashed, they are still trading, trading well. And they have weeks of good weather ahead of them and I hope that when we come back after the summer recess, we are not sitting here talking about numbers still being 56% up. But can he confirm that of course this scheme must be designed as a deterrent. But there are so many other pull factors, including our legal approach to all this, how we are dealing with this, subsidising legal actions against Aaron government and that in and of itself creates a pull factor.
14:25
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lord raises a number of key points. He has mentioned the 1951 Convention. We are committed as a government to our international obligations. There has been, as he knows, a letter circulated by some member states of the European Union for that to be examined. We want to maintain our international obligations and it is important we do so. But in doing that we still have to undertake the actions, and I'm thankful for his support on today, but also other actions.

He has mentioned that you and that you interests. We had a border security summit on organised crime on 30 March and 1 April issue. -- EU and EU interest. That brought together 50 countries that are impacted by this, including key members of the European Union such as Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and other countries such as Turkey, Tunisia, Bulgaria, Albania, Nigeria and Pakistan. Because those longer term reasons are very important to be addressed. And it is in the EU's interest because people who arrive in northern France have usually entered the European Union via southern Italy or via Greece or indeed sometimes via the borders of Poland in eastern Europe.

So it is in the EU is interest to examine the French British scheme and ensure if there are positive lessons to be learned, that is it expanded. It is enormous interest to have criminal gangs operating throughout the EU and in the United Kingdom and in the Channel. Because as well as the Channel. Because as well as the challenges of that movement, the resources that are profited from those criminal gangs are going into drugs, into guns into other activity that is fuelling further crime.

So I hope his fears will not be... And we can take action. We must also say as well that a large number of people who are arriving here, I will just point into the figure, because of the speeding up of the asylum claim process, 10,900, because of the speeding up of the asylum claim process, 10,901 asylum returns took place last year. We are speeding at the asylum claims and weeding out those people who have paid for a small boat trip, arrived in the UK and had no legitimate asylum claim whatsoever.

And I hear -- and are here to either illegitimate means or being economic migrants not coming through legal routes and that why those people are being removed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I remind very gently the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I remind very gently the noble Lord the Minister that his government has a duty and
14:28
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
responsibility to the tax paying law-abiding citizens of this country and not just supranational legal entities such as the European Court of Human Rights. On the specific issues, may I ask him, other jurisdictions consider this not even a crisis but perhaps close to a crisis. And they have actively considered the derogation of article 15 of the European Convention on human rights. This Government is not even looking at that and why is that the case? Because it Spain, Italy, Germany and other countries do it, why is it impossible for the UK to at least review the situation? The noble Lord Empey is quite right that the 1951 Convention is out of date and if it is totally proper for the government to review that and how it works for Britain.

The other issue I would raise is about asylum accommodation. Six months ago, the Minister reassured me, when I raised the issue of the dragonfly hotel in Peterborough, which has 146 male asylum seekers, that his department would improve communication with local authorities and other key agencies where new asylum facilities, hotels, were being opened. Is that the case, has there been a demonstrable improvement? And my final question, in the wake of the rather humiliating rebuff that the Prime Minister received in Albania in May, and the House will know that of course the Government is not in principle against a third country processing facility, what progress has the Government made to date in identifying an alternative to the Rwanda scheme, in order to facilitate the processing of asylum seeker applications?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful, as ever, to the noble gentleman for his questions. First of all let me reassure him, First of all let me reassure him, the taxpayer is at the forefront of this Government thinking in terms of this Government thinking in terms of the cost of this illegal migration and the criminal gangs that drove and the criminal gangs that drove it. It is for those very reasons we it. It is for those very reasons we are taking action, not just to secure our borders, but also to secure taxpayers resource.

That is why again, this time last year when why again, this time last year when we inherited the positions we very proudly held now, we were paying £8 million a day roughly in hotel fees because the government then was not processing asylum seekers, was not processing asylum seekers, was not taking the actions we have taken in taking the actions we have taken in the last year to take a deterrent, in our view, against the criminal gangs. We have managed to reduce the total cost to around 6 million a total cost to around 6 million a day, saving £2 million a day so follow, we intend to drive it down follow, we intend to drive it down further.

-- So far. I hope I can reassure him this has a cost to the taxpayer of border control and of taxpayer of border control and of dealing with asylum and of dealing with the impact of people being with the impact of people being returned. Which is why we are, as I said and repeating the figures, upping returns, upping processing, making sure we are taking foreign national prisoners out and doing that to actually reduce the illegal pressure on the United Kingdom's borders. He asked a very fair question about consultation with local authorities.

It is the government's intent that we consult with local authorities and if possible, with Elected Representatives Bill outside those local authorities, members of Parliament and others, to ensure they have an understanding of where that dispersal accommodation goes. -- Elected representatives. If he wants to show an example is aware it is not working I will look at that with colleagues as Ministers, it is important we get that right so there is consent. And the question of international agreements, it is the Government's intention to support our international agreements, any change that will be done on an international cooperation basis.

We keep everything under review. As he knows in the immigration White Paper, we have said we want to redefine article 8 and how that is interpreted by the judges and we will keep things under review but this Government will not move from its international obligations. It is a court was established with UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate the Government for reaching an agreement with Germany. My understanding is that the German law has to change before Germany can actually prosecute the gangs actually prosecute the gangs operating on German soil. How confident is the Noble Lord that there will be a full to change the there will be a full to change the law and an agreement will be reached this yeah? And he did mentioned the importance of the EU agreement, the EU operates normally I reaching an agreement of the 27 and we have
14:33
14:33
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
The noble Baronesses absolutely right and I think it is extremely important that we reach out to our European partners, members of the community, to ensure that we tackle this issue across-the-board and that needs to flow to the Mediterranean to Italy and Greece in particular, the flow of eastern Europe into Poland and the flow across the channel accordingly and as I have channel accordingly and as I have said earlier today the Calais Group operates with Belgium France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, looking at the particular pressures looking at the particular pressures their anti-agreement with Germany that has been announced today, Germany remains an independent Germany remains an independent nation cross which is responsible for its Lordships and we have got an agreement here in the treaty which agreement here in the treaty which says that the German Government is introducing a clarification to German legislation concerning the German legislation concerning the facilitation of a regular migration to the UK to be brought to Cabinet to the UK to be brought to Cabinet with a view to being adopted by Parliament as soon as possible Parliament as soon as possible within 2025.

No, Germans are responsible for the treaty we have sent today, indicating there hoping sent today, indicating there hoping to make that change, as any EU Government would, going back to its Government and securing Government and securing parliamentary support by the end of 2025, but it is entirely right that we deal with this issue and across we deal with this issue and across Europe basis because it is across Europe challenge. Europe challenge.
14:35
14:35
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - committee stage (day 1) - part two
-

My Lords, I beg to move that the House to now resolve itself into a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee upon the bill. Is many are of that opinion say content, Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content", The contents have it. Resume discussion on amendment
14:35
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Resume discussion on amendment My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords for the engagement both at second reading and during the drop in sessions and meetings that we have had subsequent to that, and can I thank the noble Baroness for Amendment one, for amendments to to seven tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Hunt and Baroness Scott, making minor changes to the amendment. As the amendments all endeavour to insert a purpose clause at the start of the bill, I will consider them together, and I just wanted to add that the debate we have had earlier today I think perhaps I have some sympathy with the fact that people do not want to put purpose clauses in the first Amendment because we did have 63 speakers at second reading and we have covered some of the same ground, but I do understand the noble Baronesses wish to do that.

I will keep my response to amendments one to seven short as the purpose and aims of the bill as I said were debated very fully during second reading also the Government has been consistently clear about the purpose and aims of the bill and I very pleased that the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord have identified many of these in her amendments. As outlined at second reading and throughout its passage, this bill is a key component of the government's missions and plan for change and it is intended to unblock the planning system and secure the infrastructure that we need in this country.

We have already delivered significant changes to our planning system through our revised programs National Planning Policy Framework, combined with these changes the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would help us to reach our ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe, decent, and affordable homes in England and fast tracking planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament. The Bill will do this by delivering on five key objectives. First, a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects the focus of our debate today, and my Noble Friend Lord hunt is quite right to point to the importance of this to achieving growth.

First of all, he spoke about connections and the fact that it can take longer to get a connection now than it did to build the whole of the A1 is crazy, and a fact of the way the planning is blocked up to some of the growth we need to see. My Noble Friend spoke about 360,000 pages of planning documents for the Lower Thames Crossing. I can only tell him that when we embarked on the major redevelopment of Stevenage town centre we had a great lorryload of documents turn up for the planning process, so I very sympathetic to what he said.

The second is a more strategic approach to recovery that will unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. We are clear that this will support nature recovery and I hope to be able to say more about this later on this afternoon. So, improve certainty and decision-making in the planning system, ensuring that local communities and politicians play their role while maximising expertise and professional planners and I would add in response to the noble Baronesses comments about this it is not a steamroller ring but it is engaging communities at the planning stage when they can have the most influence in the planning process.

Local communities and local people can do far more if they influence the local plan stage rather than when they're trying to interrupt a particular application that is in accordance with that local plan. Fourth, unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment, and introducing effective new mechanisms for cross boundary strategy planning, and I think that is an important dimension that sits alongside the bill that is currently in The Other Place running devolution and community empowerment. The bill will also support delivery of the Government Clean Power 2030 target, ensuring clean energy projects can be built as quickly as possible, including through measures that will increase community acceptability such as a build discount scheme for those that have been the closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure.

It is in the interest of our country to make our planning system better to ensure prosperity and sustained economic growth. Many noble Lords have spoken about that already in this debate and I have no doubt that the bill will help us to achieve this, along with the other package of measures that we have introduced. I am sure that these objectives I have outlined a line with the purpose in the noble Lords amendment of all of our current and future decision- making, and I do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to accept the amendment as the measures within the bill speak for themselves, but I would just like to cover some of the points that were made by noble Lords earlier in the debate.

Firstly, the noble Baroness Scott spoke about our ambitious target of 1.5 million homes safe, secure, affordable homes. It is a firm manifesto pledge, it is within our Plan for Change. And a firm commitment. Within this Government. Sorry, OK, so I think we do have a clear commitment to that. The noble Baroness Macintosh mentioned the council being able to determine the need for social homes. I would say that for the first time I was very keen to make this change in the National Planning Policy Framework and it does encourage councils to distinguish and identify the number of social hours they need from affordable homes, the definition of affordable homes is much wider and I think that was a good step forward.

And our policy on brownfield is absolutely that it must be brownfield first. I know she has a number of points to make around that and IM sure we will discuss that later in the progress and the point on progress is well made, there is a land use framework that we are hoping any day now will be published and I think she will find some information on some food production. The Noble Lord referred to place making and as someone with a new town back and I agree with the points he makes about the importance of the holistic nature and how that makes for good planning.

The Noble Lord spoke about an overall state and purpose of planning and actually the Noble Lord Fuller raised this with me yesterday and I am sure we will consider all of that further during the course of the bill. The Noble Lord rightly pointed to the link between infrastructure and growth and he makes a very important point. And that is the purpose of the bill, to make that connection much clearer and to make sure that the running legislation supports the bill mission.

The noble Baroness spoke about some of the things that can slow down planning and some of the things that we hope will speed up planning. I would just say to them I think it is the whole package we are introducing here from the national policy framework of the national develop and policies recommended by the previous Government. And then the devolution package, taking all those things together I hope is going to speed up the process and encourage the growth we all want to see.

The Noble Lord porta spoke about the functions of the act. He is not in this place at the moment, but he raised the same point that the Noble Lord fuller raised with me about the overall objectives of planning and I think that the Noble Lord mentioned this as well, I will give that further thought of. The noble Baroness coffee spoke about notices, there is a process she rightly notified about completion notices and it may be helpful if I get more information for her about how those are being used.

There's definitely powerful local Government do that already. And the combination, both in this and other measures to be taken for local authority to have the planning powers, the other powers, and the funding that they need to move this , sorry, will mean that we all get to see what we want from this. So, my Noble Friend Lord Hunt referred to the OBR report on the potential growth that could be unlocked by this bill. I am sure we will continue to debate the impact of the bill as we make our way through the amendments tabled for debate, but in the meantime, I would kindly ask the noble Lords to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Before the Noble Lady sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lady sits down, I would like to press her a little bit on the issue of delays, as I think saying the whole package is going to be better and improved going to be better and improved things is, and therefore growth will come, which we all want, is a sort of ambitious statement. Has no work of ambitious statement. Has no work been done on what changes are going to be made and what differences are going to be made? I want to try and going to be made? I want to try and speed these things up, but there do seem to be quite a lot of things that are going to speed things down, that are going to speed things down, especially in this kind of amendment, has some academic work been done on this, perhaps? That I could reference.

And I am not yet could reference. And I am not yet clear that we are going to get this support that we need in the system, particularly on things like the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly on things like the I asked the same questions myself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I asked the same questions myself as I suspected I will be asked them as part of the debate on this Bill. as part of the debate on this Bill. I asked what work been done prior to the Bill in consulting with the sectoral more widely with the academics more widely in this area, academics more widely in this area, with a number of other bodies. -- Their sector. I would read it all out that there is about a six page list of all of the work that was done prior to the Bill with the work being drafted, so I'm happy to circulate that to noble Lords if that would be helpful.

I think that was the main thing, to make sure we have spoken to both the industry, to the public sector, people that are involved in this, too much more widely, to people like the RTPI, the TCPA and all those bodies, to make sure we got there views on how a package that we were putting together could best deliver the acceleration of the planning system we want to see and that to feed into the growth we all want to see. So that is why I perhaps feel fairly optimistic that what we have got is the right combination.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

In asking your Lordships to agree, I can withdraw my amendment. agree, I can withdraw my amendment. To the Baronesses amendment. Can I first of all thank my noble friend for a really excellent winding up for a really excellent winding up and I think she has really covered the ground very competently. I also thank the noble Baroness because I think that has been a real service think that has been a real service to allow us to... I think my noble friend is being a little unfair, we have touched on some of the...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The noble Lady has got to deal with amendment three first. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. You cannot withdraw yours, Milo, Intel I have withdrawn my, I think, Intel I have withdrawn my, I think, I think that is what we... -- my Lord, until I have withdrawn mine. I
14:48
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Lord, until I have withdrawn mine. I would like to start by thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for her replies and I look forward to working continually with her through the whole of this Bill. Just a quick thank you again to Lady Pinnock for bringing it forward. Because I think it has been a debate that is useful to have at the beginning of any bill, just to set the tone. Before I finish, I really just want to return to what I think is the central issue.

And it has been raised repeatedly by I think nearly everybody that spoken in this Bill and that is the future of local democracy under the provision of the Bill. At second reading and again today the noble Lady the Minister insisted this legislation does not represent attack on local democracy. She reaffirmed the government's position that local decision-making remains central to the planning process. My Lords, I fear we may be reading different bills. Because in clause after clause, the principal of localism, the very foundation of community led planning is being eroded.

We are witnessing the repeal of large sections of the Localism Act. We are seeing the introduction of powers that allow government imposed national significant infrastructure projects to bypass not only local consent, but in many cases, meaningful public engagement altogether. This Bill shifts power upwards, away from communities and towards the centre. That is why I believe that subsection D of the purpose clause is not just helpful, but it is essential. It reasserts a principle that should never have been up for negotiation.

That local voices must be heard and that development should happen with communities and not to them. And I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to supporting this principle. Finally, I want to close by turning back to subsection C of the purpose clause. This is clearly an emotive issue and rightly so, it has drawn attention from across the House today. But at least because of the direct relevance to part three of the Bill. Part three risks weakening vital environmental protections at precisely the moment we should be strengthening them.

It represents a step backwards, regression from the hard-won safeguards enshrined in the Conservatives Environment Act. And the problems do not stop there, there are gap, inconsistencies and serious omissions and I urge the Minister to police that back, listen carefully and engage with these concerns, not just from the House, but from a broad coalition outside it. I hope the House will forgive me. It is quite personal. If I say it is bizarre, in my opinion, that during the... Noble Lords block reform of nutrient neutrality in this place.

This does leave me curious to see if they will raise the same concerns now, nutrient neutrality provisions are in their own bill. And we have wasted a number of years where up to 160,000 new homes could have built in this country. And I wish to conclude by reaffirming throughout the committee and in the remaining stages of the Bill, we are committed to working constructively with the Government. Because we want to deliver more homes and the important infrastructure that this country needs.

But we have to get the process to get to that right. I had the privilege of working on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and many noble Lords will recall the year I spent taking that legislation through this House. And with the same level of commitment I had to that bill, I look forward to engaging with the noble Lady the Minister to ensure that we get this Bill through and get it right. But at this point, I beg to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that amendment three be withdrawn. Amendment three is by leave withdrawn. I apologise to the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening before she withdrew her amendment to my amendment and --
14:52
14:53
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

... I had forgotten, this is a novel approach for me, amendment upon amendment upon amendment. I too want to thank everyone who has want to thank everyone who has engaged with this debate because it has been a positive and constructive one. And I hope will lay the foundations for the rest of the Bill that all of us are anxious to get critical infrastructure built in this country. And I particularly reference that of the noble Lord hunts about energy infrastructure.

-- Noble Lord Hunt's. We have to find a way of doing that much more promptly than is currently the case. So my amendment is not about trying to prevent development and infrastructure being created. But to find, I think the noble Lord banner use the word proportionality, I use the word balance. And it is trying to find the right balance between what the country desperately needs and what... How far local communities can influence that those changes.

-- Lord Banner. That is where I think, the noble Lord Hunt use the tension might use the word tension, lies. It was strikes me that one of the responsibilities of those fortunate enough to be elected politicians is to make those arguments to people. To say we need houses. I have done in my own ward just lately. We need houses. We have got to have more homes for people. And therefore this is how we are going to do it.

So you make the case. And I think that is one of the responsibilities put on us if we are fortunate enough to be elected. The noble Baroness the Minister... Unjustly to take issue with one thing. She said we do not need a purpose clause. And then listed the five things that were the purpose, I only listed four, so we can add the fifth, about strategic planning. And that is why I think it is really important to lay down these points before we enter the next stages of debate.

The other thing I am just going to set this point, about the noble Baroness the Minister said local communities can engage the local planning stage. I have taken two or three local plans through the area I represent and it is an extraordinarily difficult to get from folk -- to get folk to engage in theory. Because all you have is on a map, this is going to be a housing site, this is going to be a business site. It is very difficult...

I've tried really hard and it is very difficult to engage. So we'll get to that, no doubt, as a point. Two more points and then I will withdraw. One is we do need a definition of affordable housing. And we on the ventures will pursue that. -- On these benches. The other point I wanted to raise noble Baroness Lady Scott is 1.5 million homes amendment would be greatly enhanced if it had included the absolute essential element in that of homes for social rent.

On these benches we will keep pressing, we desperately need homes for social rent, above almost anything else. Because I am tired and angry at some of the conditions people in my area are living in. And if we could have decent social homes for rent, it will greatly enhance their lives. With that anger but thank everybody for their engagement in this, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment one be withdrawn. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that amendment one be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Clause 1, amendment eight. I do not want to return to the
14:57
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not want to return to the previous debate but my Lords, certainly I think there is a general view that the current planning and view that the current planning and regulatory system is a barrier to efficient infrastructure delivery. In the last debate I refer to the excellent report from the council and geo-strategy, which identified many problems. We have got a system where doing something is worse than doing nothing, what I thought was put across very by the noble Lord in our first debate.

And another symbol of our problems is actually the cost of infrastructure investment. Projects such as rail and road, in comparison to comparable nations, we really do have unacceptably high costs. HS2, Budget Bill 37.5 billion, now 110 billion. Lower Thames crossing, budgeted 3.5 billion, now 9 billion. Hinkley Point C, budgeted for 18 billion, now 40-50 billion. There are many, many more examples of this and of course it is not all due to the planning and regulatory constraints. But they certainly played their part.

And much of the Bill I really strongly welcome. Particularly the intent to streamline the nationally significant in the structure projects, the reduction in... And I encourage the work of Lord Banner and his reviewing that. I know the Minister today has sent us a letter actually saying what further action is going to be taken, I think in a very short space of time. I also am very interested in the bill's intent to scrap the specimen by specimen side-by-side approach to protecting nature and replace it with the nature restoration fund.

On energy, I really do welcome the provisions, partly because I think my department wrote them and therefore, I could not but applaud and welcome the work that DESNZ has done there. And I think they will make a real difference. Of course, the big question for us is this going to be sufficient? Talking to developers, it is clear they still... There are it is clear they still... There are going to have to navigate national policy... The dozens of secondary licences set by the regulators, as well as judicial reviews and of course the various tiers of local authorities who will be involved.

And indeed, in nuclear development we have a parallel justification process. Which is lengthy and expensive and which I am very hopeful that the current task force looking at nuclear regulation will come forward with recommendations on whether we can actually avoid that whether we can actually avoid that duplication. I think we have to accept that we are obviously coming onto Patriot some point in September. But I think there are some real questions about whether EDPs can deliver for major infrastructure projects.

I clearly see the benefits, will see lots of housing developed in a particular area. -- Coming onto part three. I think there are some issues around major infrastructure developments. A head of planning has written that there is a risk that developers will need to attract the process by also going through the habitats assessment regime because and EDP was not in place at the time it sent the application. That clearly is going to be a real problem for developers.

I know will come on to talk about Natural England and their contribution and role and the capability and I know the Government has made available additional resources before the income that resources before the income that But there are some genuine concerns about the level of bureaucracy and the likely cost of an EDP levy. The time it would take to get regulations in place under this act. It's not a question of whether we've got enough people.

It's whether we've got the right people and the scientific calibre to actually move away from what I see as a bureaucratic and tick box exercise, to actually a sensible, proportionate approach. This is really it. I think the bill is really well intended but we are dependent on a whole array of regulators and agencies and Local Planning Authorities doing the right thing, understanding what they are there to do. Coming back to the point Lord banner raised before, many of our regulators do not seem to understand the issue of proportionality.

What they understand is risk aversion. I think as yet, and seeing some of the public statements regulators issued, I don't think they get it. I think there is a real risk they will not operate the new legislation in the spirit with which it is intended. My amendment is very, very modest. It amendment is very, very modest. It is saying to things. Bring strict deadlines and statutory consultations. We cannot have a situation where regulators do not respond and do what they're expected to do on time.

We have to draw a line on that. Secondly, the council recommended international benchmarking. I actually think regular international benchmarking of British project performance on infrastructure as compared to other countries will be very, very valuable indeed. It would be solitary because we would have confirmed that in general we are... confirmed that in general we are...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We take longer and cost more. Amendment proposed, insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, insert the words printed on the Marshalled List.
15:04
15:05
15:06
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

provisions. I rise to move my amendment --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment -- amendments. It's more about clause 2 amendments. It's more about clause 2 of the bill. I will say at the start, on amendment eight, I respect the former minister's experience and probably frustrations, but am very concerned that candidly, having represented a part of the country were probably more NSIPs than any other constituency, actually trying to make sure there are enough resources and officials to sufficiently go through these combinations of NSIPs which are considered separately, is really quite a stretch.

Especially when, and I'm conscious of what was mentioned earlier about tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that we have generated to go with our planning applications. But I have to remind House that it is Parliament that has agreed to this legislation. It is paramount -- Parliament that has agreed for the regulator to be the decision-making wrong decision maker. -- Parliament that has agreed for the regulator. This brings in the extra challenge.

I completely understand the point made that... In the last administration try to make some changes by unlocking 60,000 homes but also had placed various duties in terms of thinking about economic growth. I think completely, as I say, I understand concerns about timing but if we are going to adjust that, we need to make sure the resourcing is there as well. Turning to clause 2, this is about the parliamentary Christian -- scrutiny. There are certain elements of the process which could be speeded up but there are key points in here which actually remove accountability to Parliament by the executive.

It so happens, amendment executive. It so happens, amendment 13 that I tabled, in the Comments at report stage, the Liaison Committee, the chair of every Select Committee in the House of Commons, every single one, put aside an amendment put forward an amendment to remove this. -- Put forward an amendment to remove this. I find it extraordinary why the government wants to remove that. It's quite a simple thing to simply lay a statement or whatever it is.

And the assessment of the Mr it is. And the assessment of the Mr -- Minister Penicuik. They -- Minister Penicuik. They are -- Minister Penicuik. They are not proper debates, they are not proper consideration. I am concerned about that. One of the other amendments I have in this group is to, in effect, something happened... I remember the first national policy statement about nuclear that I was engaged in. There was a debate on the floor of the House on the other end.

Along the way, something changed in terms of process and it's entirely -- it entirely reliant on the Liaison Committee to get a Select Committee to look at something, send it back, the government would then respond and say " As a consequence of this, we are making these changes." And it never made it back to the House. There was a process we could do something once the Secretary of State had laid it but for backbenchers, there is no mechanism on how you could get a debate on the final national policy statement.

It final national policy statement. It was just impossible. It could have been done in the name of the government but they just didn't. It was the Conservative government, so don't worry, I had a pop at them at the time. It's that sort of thing that I don't really understand. The impact of national policy statements is so huge. Why the government is going further in removing a key part of parliamentary scrutiny... And I genuinely hope the government will think again.

I'd have no problem if the government were to make some other ways of doing a variety of what you do with a few days or whatever it is on timing. But we should also remember, and we see it more in this House. We have a wider range of crossbenchers. Until this Parliament, that's not been quite the same on the other end. It's not fair on minority parties, particularly those representing constituencies where such change is being proposed to remove the opportunity to stand up and opportunity to stand up and represent their communities on what the future could be on a number of national policy statements.

The other amendments I have put in a somewhat technical. In regards to not wanting effects to be retrospective and so on and so forth. I'm not going to try and cover every single many shy -- minutiae. On the wider point of minutiae. On the wider point of amendment 16 in my name, and this is where I'm trying to pull together some of the threads of what this bill really should be about including speed of infrastructure and increasing the number of forms.

The Office for Environmental Protection recently in its recent report said that it would like the government to start making it standard practice that when they do you policies, that they routinely publish the assessment that they consider, they produce internally within departments and consider, and that is necessary because actually every single minister is legally required to consider the correlation between their policies and that of the environmental principles policy statement. That is in law.

There is no way for this house, apart from trust, to do that, to see how that works together. And it really matters that we start to get into working together on how we make this happen. Now, one of the frustrations that people might have is that, and I appreciate there is a legal case going on at the moment about was on the face of the bill, about whether this is compliant, about whether it is reducing the impact of environmental law, so not go again -- so I'm not going to get into that, but one of the things minister's experience is that when external bodies get involved, there is a duty of candour required on the government to actually release lots and lots and lots of information that the Minister will have to have considered on whether they can be compliant with the law and how they address.

That is not available to Parliament. I want to make it available to Parliament. I've had a debate with the clerks about whether we should have a duty of candour or similar. Innocence, when we are trying to scrutinise not only the really executive but how legislation is being applied, that it is fair to this House and to the other House to have a basis of information so that, for whatever reason, the Minister has decided we're not going to worry about that but we do that consciously because we believe there is a greater good under various articles, a greater good that is needed.

OK. Let's be transparent about it. What I'm trying to do and it comes up on a similar principle later on when it gets to planning applications, by the way based on something that chief executive of Natural England said in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, is to just get the cards on the table. Let's make sure that the environment act 2021 and the targets and primary legislation are not all of a sudden ditched because of the rush to do XYZ.

Without this house or the other house knowing about it. So it can be challenged, so it can be potentially revised so that if necessary we can come forward with other amendments or legislation to make the government compliant with the law without waiting until whatever deadline it is. To that end, that is why I am concerned that the amount of parliamentary scrutiny is actually being reduced and I also want to make sure that both houses have as much information as would be given to somebody putting in a pre- action protocol letter to make sure we can continue to scrutinise.

A big we can continue to scrutinise. A big
15:17
15:19
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for leading the group on policy and his application for speed and simplicity, ticking away two of my points in repetition. These go to the heart of what the planning system needs to have, clarity and speed. Quality needs to be clear and consistently implemented to developers, planners, local councils understand what is required and how decisions will be made in a way that reduces risk, cost parties for also being clear and transparent to the public.

Projects need to move through the system efficiently and effectively so that they get delivered on time and on -- unnecessary and costly delays are avoided. I asked the Minister how she intends to provide further detail about the review of national policy statements and how she plans to ensure that consistency and clarity are truly embedded in the process. I nine in my name, it seeks to look at the meaning of exceptional circumstances in the meaning of reviewing or amending national policy.

In the context... The aim is to clarify the intent behind the town hall ensuring ministers retain the flexibility that they need for national emergencies. My concern is that the policy, as required by section 5a could be delayed if the criteria for exceptional circumstances is made. I would be grateful if the Minister can set it what you consider to fall within that phrase and if current wording risks unnecessary uncertainty or a shift in the overall approach.

We need to strike a careful balance, avoiding the risk of judicial review and maintaining sufficient ministerial flexibility in genuine emergencies. Governments must be able to act swiftly. If the decision is justified on the basis of exceptional circumstances, it becomes difficult to challenge that rationale. Courts often defer to open ended terms which can weaken accountability. We find it difficult to challenge the use of powers in this area. I would welcome reassurance from the Baroness that the wording achieves the right balance and finally I wish to thank my noble friend is, the Baroness, and her insight and experience will be vital in securing the bill.

I want to highlight amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend. It is vital because it results Parliamentary accountability by requiring governments to from the response to resolutions and recommendations from select committees. That, in turn, helps clarify policy direction early, reduces uncertainty for developers, and ensures timely engagement with concerns before they can cause delay. Stronger scrutiny at this stage could help catch retention issues before they escalate. I would like to thank other noble Lord you have spoken in the debate including have spoken in the debate including Lord Hunt, Baroness, and Lord Ravensdale, particularly on EPDs, if they are fit for purpose, and the role of Natural England, which I'm sure we will come back to again and again.

Returning back to the amendments, they are small and significant measures and I hope the Minister can provide the House with the answers to the questions and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

engage with the knowledge that this House brings to ensure we get this right. The noble Lord Hunt began

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord Hunt began committee this afternoon talking about the tensions that are to be
15:23
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
about the tensions that are to be found between creating balance and getting the critical infrastructure the countries and how we go about doing it. It has reminded the House of the escalating cost of some particular infrastructure developments. And it gives us a reason, but it is risk aversion that will lead to piles of paper being used to ensure no one is caught out by challenges to the decisions that have been made.

That is right in the group at the National policy statements which are the foundation of the planning and a destructive element in the country are critical and the noble Baroness is right to point out that any fundamental change to a national policy or to have proper public accountability through the House or at the other end of Parliament, she is quite right to do that. Accountability helps the process. It helps to expose weaknesses in for what is being proposed and maybe enhances the policy statement itself.

Not in the rush for growth and throughout the accountability that is essential in planning and infrastructure development. That will be a thread that I think will run through discussion of this bill. That is the dilemma, the tension, and where we have accountability. How much weight to be give to the accountability? How much weight to be give to the How much weight to be give to the urgent need for development? That is attention and that is what we will have to find our way through.

If you have to find our way through. If you want is anxious that the country is able to produce it, particularly with critical infrastructure and housing and without the undue cost and delay. It is how we get the act that is the problem. I think I am on that is the problem. I think I am on board with the Baroness wanting to have any changes to national policy to bits to be brought in front of the house as affirmative resolution.

I look forward to the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dilemmas. Amendments tabled by Lord Hunt of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments tabled by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the Baroness unmoved
15:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Kings Heath and the Baroness unmoved by Lord Jamieson and the amendment of Baroness Coffey are seeking to amend clauses 1 and two of the bill could set out frameworks for the national policy statements and introduce a streamlined procedure for updating the national policy statements when certain changes are made to them. I begin by turning to amendment eight, tabled by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank him for the thought he has clearly put into improving the bill and some radical thinking which we will come to in later suggestions.

It is always welcome. His amendment is also signed by Lord Ravensdale. I understand the desire to improve the speed and clarity of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure budgets and national policy statements but I believe the wholesale approach of the amendment could have unintended consequences. Firstly, it proposes fixed time limits for statutory consultation and in the case of national policy statements, statutory consultation is not typically because of delay, unlike development consent orders where we have removed the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation.

For national policy statements, the time for the consultation will vary significantly depending on the complexity of the policy area and the nature of infrastructure involved and in -- imposing a time limit risks the quality of the regulation, particularly for contentious projects. The consultation principles of the government make clear consultation should be proportionate and I think we will cure that word a lot during the course of the debate, to be potential impact of the proposal. Secondly, the amendment attempts to tackle concerns about the timeliness of responses by statutory consultees to national policy consultation and requests for further information for development for consent.

Our experience in this area, statutory consultees do respond adequately and without much delay. We appreciate evidence of slow responses from statutory consultees in the development consultation is but the idea that the statutory consultees should completely lose the right to comment on MPS if they do not respond to the set timeframe might be a step too far or too rigid. The Health Secretary executive and other statutory consultees play a role in public welfare and it is not optional but essential to have the role and instead of removing it, the government is actively reforming how they prioritise and resource work across the planning system and this includes measures in the bill which enable statutory consultees to fund services across the broader tiling system more sustainable and it requires them to have regard to guidance issued by the government on the role.

This provides a statutory mechanism for the first time to ensure consultees engage appropriately and in a timely manner, without compromising the integrity of the process. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the consulting process and I recognise the spirit of these amendments is in keeping with wider approaches taken to make the system more productive and streamlined. The issues faced by national policy statements manifest themselves differently and in practice they would have unintended consequences which risk damaging how consequences which risk damaging how I now turn to amendment nine, tabled by Lord Jamieson.

This amendment will replace the existing phrase " Exceptional circumstances" With " Significant, unforeseen Significant, unforeseen circumstances". My view is that the current wording is clear and already captures the intended meaning. Exceptional circumstances is a well understood term. The current wording underlines the exceptionally high bar envisaged for circumstances that must arise and persist in order for the government to delay and a date to a national policy statement. To make things clear, I can provide the house with two examples of circumstances which will be recognised as exceptional, justifying the use of this narrow exemption.

The first would be for example suspension of Parliament which could be due to the calling of a general election and the second would be the outbreak of a pandemic. Not updating a national policy statement impact investment and statement impact investment and slows down processes. Some remain over 10 years old. That's why it's right for the government to have such a high bar when it comes to exempting national policy statements from the requirement to be updated every five years. I believe the bill already delivers the spirit of that amendment that I welcome the probing amendment as an opportunity to clarify the intent here.

I would turn out to amendment 10 and 11. These would require House of Commons to approve a national policy statement before it can be designated. The amendments 10 and 11 is drafted do not extend the requirement to update to an existing national policy statement. I appreciate the reasoning for this amendment but I do not agree that the House of Commons procedure is in practice difficult for members of Parliament to navigate. Take for example the national network 's policy statement from Matthew.

The debate and subsequent resolution was passed in the House of Commons within the 21 days sitting period, showing is a practicable system with opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise and intervene. Furthermore, the new national policies to ants are required to undergo public consultation. And did, it is common practice for new national policies the is to go through to stages of consultation, first on the scope and the second on the draft National policy statement itself. The national policy statement is then subject to parliamentary scrutiny and government cannot proceed until it has laid a report in Parliament responding to any parliamentary resolutions or committee recommendations.

Finally, members of Parliament have 21 sitting days to raise any objections before the NPS is designated. The process for designating a new NPS is therefore robust. There are multiple opportunities for members of Parliament to engage in that process. To add a further requirement that the Commons must approve an NPS my resolution is likely to delay the designation stage of these vital policy documents and the critical infrastructure providers -- project that rely on them. This would have knock-on effects for investment, growth and housing delivery.

Turning to amendment 12, 13, 14 and 15 to amendment 12, 13, 14 and 15 tabled by lady coffee -- Baroness Coffey. Ensuring national policy statements are up to date, assist applicants and the Secretary of State could have regard to them is important and relevant considerations in the decision- making process for applications. Even if the application is examined against the previous version as a result of the transitional provisions in the updated national policy statement. As the government has already set outcome are not trying to remove wholesale commentary from a parliamentary scrutiny -- remove wholesale parliamentary scrutiny.

The Secretary of State must lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the National policy statement is taking place. Second, will write to the committee at the start of the consultation period. Third, ministers will make themselves available to speak at the select committee during the consultation period as far as is practicable. Number for commercial select committee published a report within the timeframes of the public consultation period, the government will take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before Parliament.

Finally, and most importantly, the NPS as amended will be required to be laid in Parliament for 21 days in which time the House of Commons may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. This means that Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. For clarity, I will also set out the types of changes the new effective -- reflective amendment route would apply to. Amendment or repeal is to existing legislation since the NPS was last amended.

Any changes to documents referred to in the NPS. Already published government policy, including on priority areas such as Recognising the role committee can play in scrutinising and approving policy, government is committed to ensuring they have notified the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. The Minister will have already later statement before Parliament announcing the review of an NPS, regardless of the anticipated procedure to be used. Should a select committee published a report within the timeframes of the public consultation period, the government will take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before Parliament for 21 days where it can be scrutinised by either his.

At the end of the reflective amendment process, the NPS as amended will still need to be laid in Parliament for 21 days during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Finally, I will turn to amendment 16, tabled by Baroness Coffey.
15:38
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
The reason I know about this so much, and there was a debate is because I kicked off a fuss and then the house pledged it would do these resolutions. This is my concern about the fact so much depends on what the frontbench decides they will do at the time. That's why I'm concerned about it. I appreciate what the Minister has said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady and I understand her expertise in these matters so perhaps we could have another concert two conversation. -- another concert two conversation. -- Conversation. Turning to amendment 16 tabled by Baroness Coffey which 16 tabled by Baroness Coffey which will enquire environment principles policy statement to be considered in policy statement to be considered in the development of national policy statements. The environment principles policy statement is a statutory document that aids statutory document that aids policymakers and how to interpret policymakers and how to interpret and proportionately apply the five environmental principles.

Policymakers are assisted in assessing the environmental impact of policy. This is not replication of policy. This is not replication of the environmental impact assessment process. The principles are not rules and they do not dictate policy outcomes. Ministers are under statutory duty to have due are under statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when developing policy, including NPS. developing policy, including NPS. This is a matter of legal compliance and is embedded in the policy-making process. Furthermore, national policies the is also required by statute to be a convicted -- to be statute to be a convicted -- to be accompanied by an appraisal.

As well as a Strategic Environmental Assessment and assurances that Assessment and assurances that environmental considerations are fully integrated. Habitat regulation assessment must be undertaken for a national policy statement to comply with the requirements of the conservation of habitats and species regulations 2017. The preparation of assessment of sustainability is a compressive process and includes an examination of the likely environmental effects of designating a national policy statement and the reasonable alternatives to a national policy statement. It also requires the government to set out measures to mitigate any significant negative effect identified and any enhancement measures.

The assessment of sustainability is an iterative process done in conjunction with the updating of a national policy statement. For example, encourage members to read the assessment of sustainability that was published alongside the national networks policy statement which sets out a credit methodology of all of the
15:40
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
above -- clear methodology of all of above -- clear methodology of all of the above. I know it has been a long explanation but I felt the detailed nature of the amendments warranted nature of the amendments warranted it. For these reasons, I don't it. For these reasons, I don't believe that a separate written assessment within each national policy statement is necessary. If I may turn briefly to some of the points raised by other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the capability and capacity of to the capability and capacity of Natural England.

This is an issue that has been raised many times. It was raised in the other place and it was raised in the other place and it has been raised in here. We will has been raised in here. We will come to this when we start to debate section 3 of the bill. The noble section 3 of the bill. The noble Lord Mawson, did he mean the Lord Mawson, did he mean the Building Safety Regulator? I was not quite sure which regulator he was talking about but happy to answer any questions about that.

We have any questions about that. We have done significant work with Building Safety Regulator to try to speed up the process. We have increased their resources. Things are moving much quicker already and the development industry is seeing a change already. industry is seeing a change already. Lord banner -- Lord Brennan spoke about the precautionary principle. One of the things we have to look out for is the proportionate use of precautionary principles without going over the top and goldplating everything, which has been I'm afraid too much of a figure feature I thank the Jemison and Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pinnock for their contributions. Can I kindly ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments at this stage? I'm very grateful to my noble
15:42
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my noble friend. She gave a very comprehensive and very helpful response. Obviously, I will withdraw response. Obviously, I will withdraw my amendment. It seems to me that there were a number of threads but a particular one is what the legislation is seeking to achieve, the role of regulators and planners and the interface with the democratic process. Baroness Coffey and Baroness Pinnock really I thought had some important points to raise here. Clearly, in the end, Parliament is guilty of this because we have collectively created a range of quangos and regulators.

I suspect all those who have been ministers are guilty of that. Some of it is entirely justified. For instance, with nuclear regulation, you needed to be robust and independent. As Health Minister for too many years ago, I was part of the team that created independent regulation panels and that is because ministers were not able to take decisions on the closure of hospitals because it was all too difficult. Sometimes, my Lords, there is the justification for offshoring. I agree with her that we have gone too far and that we need to draw distinctions in -- a distinction in the role of regulators and making judgements.

The other thing I would say to the noble Baroness as I understand what she means about the issue, particularly in her patch, when you have a number of different NCOs under different NSIP regimes. You had Baroness Pickering talk about punitive impacts. Where the tick box and judgements they make mean that a collaborative enterprise becomes very difficult. I suspect that's what Lord Mawson is talking about, so that if he has had a fantastic track record in doing this, has got a scheme which is partly about NHS, improved timely care provision, with housing attached and maybe even commercial development, you are dealing with a whole host of different bodies, all of which deal with these things in a compartmentalised way.

Somehow, we have to get through it. It's partly about the work in relation to the relationship between the proportionate principle and the precautionary principle. Is partly also about making sure that the new system we introduce, as Lord Renfrew system we introduce, as Lord Renfrew and still -- Lord Ravensdale said, deals with major infrastructure deals with major infrastructure problems. -- Projects. I do think Parliamentary oversight in one way or another is one way we can overcome some of the barriers and I have later amendments were have put forward some ideas about that.

Clearly, if the democratic process can legitimise the speed up of what we seek to do, that it seems to me would be a very helpful move. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw The question is that clause 1 stand as part of the bill. As many as that opinion, say, "Content." to the country, say, "Not content." The question is that clause 2 play part of the bill. The contents have had. Amendment 16. Not moved.

Amendment 17, clause 3, Baroness Coffey. I
15:46
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
write to move the amendment with which I will also debate the other amendments in my name, 18, 19, 20, amendments in my name, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. There is a theme that I 21, 22, 23. There is a theme that I hope will become clear and I thank my noble friends on the front bench my noble friends on the front bench for adding their names to 17 and 23. for adding their names to 17 and 23. The notes, various bits of the The notes, various bits of the memorandum here, they are designed memorandum here, they are designed to make aspects of planning speed up and I understand flexibility that they wanted.

I was surprised in the committee talking about offshore generation that the Minister, Penny click, suggested the MMO could click, suggested the MMO could become a planning authority. -- become a planning authority. -- Cook. The theme through my amendments is really about the fact amendments is really about the fact that the secretary of has some very that the secretary of has some very special powers, special development orders. And, throughout the post, and that is why I put in some detail amendments, wildly narrative, including various memoranda, has been that it can go to an alternative authority, the reason I've picked these amendments in is that there is an alternative consenting authority which is the Secretary of State themselves.

That is why amendment 17 is trying to probe why in the bill it refers to, I think it is section 59, why, in terms of saying you do not need to do the process, but, should you go, I could authorise this tomorrow, more or less, without public consultation or engagement, without those sorts of things and that the Secretary of State has the power to Secretary of State has the power to do that today.

I expect things involving MoD land and things like that, the reasons for doing it may be, not reasons, the reasons may be somewhat of national security, infrastructure, and so on, but I am concerned that this has a lot of power being added to the Secretary of State and we should be considering that cheerfully and is particularly true and I think it is amendment 23 in my name and it's true in thinking about nuclear and other energy generation. The amount of land that is taken by most energy projects is pretty significant, not just the station itself or the transmission network but also the amount of preparation that has to be done and that is why I would like to see a commitment, ideally in the law, that this will never apply to the Secretary of State, on the request, can send off to themselves to get planning permission from a developer.

In terms of one of the other aspects of the amendments I have people, I think this is a novel process and I think that is the explanation in the various memoranda, that it will be down in regulation but I was suggesting that by pitting the three months for the decision on the bill, it seemed reasonable and the whole point is that it wants it to be down quicker and that is considering whether or not it is something that should go through the process or through an alternative authority and in the debate on the first group, it was mentioned the commitment of the Minister to write and it was Minister to write and it was Minister Penny click in the House of Commons and they considered that he pledged several times in the debate on this to write to the committee and to my knowledge the letter certainly may have been sent to members of the committee but has never appeared on the website and has never been deposited in the libraries of each House and he pledged to give more examples of how this would work in practice and the reason for this today is that we could end up with some sort of Secretary of State determined to build everywhere, whatever they like.

And, as it stands today, like. And, as it stands today, through this amendment and this new clause, we will be giving them the powers to do that and I do not think that we should. That is why I wanted to get into looking at this clause and if I turn to the convention on human rights, I think article 6, just getting to the page, again, the backup from the memorandum talked about alternative consenting resumes being likely to be mentioned in the planning act and the Harbours Act but it is not saying it will only be.

That is part of my concerns. In a variety of ways, this is probing to see if we can properly get, in effect, commitment from the government and if it is not in legislation, that on the floor of this House, of of the Minister, that it can be used in a future court case when somebody might oppose the Secretary of State doing something so Draconian and it was made clear to this House, this parliament, that it would never happen.

So far, none of the backup memoranda make that explicit and that is what I hope to achieve today and, in particular, achieve today and, in particular, I'm concerned about, when it comes to energy projects, Lord Hunt, who is no longer in his place, but I've explained how I have got extensive explained how I have got extensive experience of trying to handle this and they were then a member of Parliament and though in this place and we have discussed the community and what is happening in that regard.

With that, I beg to move. 28-32.
15:54
15:56
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
What I would like to understand from the Minister is in the amendment number 17 fridge is specific -- which is specific about removing the required consent for extensions or construction of a generating station, for electricity, and so can the Minister explain why, in this particular instance, the government proposal is being the supplied -- is not being put through the proper process? It would be important to understand the reasons. If it is for timeliness, what causes the delay? Course, is that related to timeliness is there another way of having accountability and public discourse without creating time delays and cost pressures as a consequence? Otherwise, I would want to look at the current requirements for consent.

Again, the accountability is running through the tensions, as Lord Hunt mentioned, between getting things done and accountability from local communities. Those are a few comments and I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detailed answer from the Minister. I want to thank Baroness Coffey

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to thank Baroness Coffey for tabling the amendment. I hope to be able to give her an explanation. be able to give her an explanation. be able to give her an explanation. She has mentioned what -- the letter that was sent and I will provide her with a copy but it would not be with a copy but it would not be usual, I suspect, for copies of letters in the other place to be letters in the other place to be automatically circulated.

I will see if that letter exists and if it does, I will send it to her. All the
15:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
does, I will send it to her. All the amendments tabled by Baroness Coffey seek to look at the redirection process and set out in clause 3, including the replacement of powers for regulation with time limits for statutory guidance. I recognise that amendment 17 is probing and so I will first of all look at how the redirection process has been designed before addressing concerns head-on and turning to amendments 23. It is important to take the time to explain these properly.

The regime was designed to provide a route through which to direct all kinds of large infrastructure schemes. This approach of one-size- fits-all is not appropriate for all and the new clause will address this by creating new powers for the Secretary of State to issue direction, meaning schemes above official do not need development consent. It also looks at the circumstances in which a request might arise, what that might contain, and the steps that must be followed in the response.

Crucially, the Secretary of State can only have development of the regime if they consider an alternative consenting route to be appropriate, given the particular circumstances of the development in question. Enhancing the flexibility of the system of planning and this we should reduce burdens on applicants which are otherwise disproportionate and support government ambitions for a streamlined planning system. This level of flexibility already exists under the Planning Act, and section 35 enables the Secretary of State to direct into the regime the projects and schemes outside of the statutory thresholds which have nonetheless requested to follow the process for nationally significant infrastructure schemes.

This has been invaluable, as we know, in enabling schemes to progress. Clause 3 provides the flexibility but in the other direction. It may be that the scheme is located in an area with a supportive local authority does not require the acquisition of land. Instead of requiring the entire scheme to become an NSIP, they could follow the route was the property to the project. There are proposals for streamlining the process. The existing thresholds have not kept pace with technological advancements which has held back projects, for example, medium-sized schemes, because the process to develop consent was out of kilter with the regularly straightforward nature of the scheme.

Clause 3 is intended to be flexible so the Secretary of State can choose the appropriate route for consent depending on particular requirements of the scheme. As has been pointed out, this means the power could be used to direct a scheme under the Town And Country Planning Act and it may directly scheme to seek consent under the highways act. The government will publish a policy setting are key factors in the separatist it will take into account when taking a decision on whether or not to give direction.

Given the intent of the powers to increase tax ability, it's critical that potentially viable planning routes are not excluded. Amendments 17 and 23 seek to prevent the power being used to redirect a project to be consented using a project to be consented using a Amendment 23 goes further. It would require directed onshore energy generation projects to be consented through the electricity act 1989. Additional steps around outlining cases finance a project being cases finance a project being Similarly Similarly to Similarly to other Similarly to other types Similarly to other types of Similarly to other types of consent, development orders are an established part of the planning system in England.

They are made by statutory instrument and laid before Parliament under a negative procedure. Development orders have in the past been used to grant permission for certain classes of development for the purpose of national defence, for example. An alternative example may be that a commercial development that could otherwise be consented to a special development order also requires an access road that under existing legislation could only be consented through a consent order. This power would allow a project to be consented under a process which is proportionate to the complexity of the scheme.

Amendment 17 and 23 would not only remove the option of the development order but will also force and onshore energy generation scheme to be consented via the Electricity Act 1989. This process under section 36 of the act was not designed to deal with modern energy demands. That's why it was replaced by the Planning Act in 2008. The government agrees that where appropriate we should ensure that onshore electricity generation can be consented through other appropriate consenting rates, which might enable local decision-making.

This amendment in practice does not deliver this. The proposed amendment would also remove the ability to handle a request for an NSIT project to be directed. This would require them to make a written request for a direction to themselves. This is clearly impractical and unnecessary. Instead, noble ships can rest assured that if circumstances were to arise, the Secretary of State would follow guidance in the same way as already happens for planning casework decisions. I turn now to amendments 18, 19, 20 and 22, also tabled by Baroness Coffey.

+3 empowers the Secretary of State to buy regulations make provision for time limit, including extension of time limit including request for redirection. These amendments... It would also enable a further period of a month after the initial determination to consider further information -- intervention before reaching a final decision. The government once request for intervention... To ensure decisions can be made in a timely fashion and fairly. The most appropriate timeframe would depend on a number timeframe would depend on a number The demand from applicants, the complexity of projects coming forward.

By taking a power to make regulations, the government can adjust the timetable as it learns more about the types of requests it's likely to receive. Setting out a timeframe in primary legislation medicines advise -- disincentivise. It could also result in an unrealistic and workable time limit, for example when it comes to complex decisions -- unworkable. The government must set timeframes as quickly as possible. Finally, come to amendment 21. Class 3 also gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about the timetable for deciding request for direction.

This includes the timetable for the provision of information to the Secretary of State in order to make such a decision. The proposed amendment will replace this provision with a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance about the timetabling of information required to decide request for direction. Making a decision to direct the project out of the regime will be a significant endeavour. It's right the government can be clear about when such information will be required from applicants to enable robust and fair decisions to be made.

It's also the government's view that specifying this information statutory guidance will reduce certainty for most -- of those making a request. The government was to make sure that requests can be made and determined quickly and that qualifying persons have certainty about when information is needed for such request. It is therefore important that the government retains the ability to make such provision in regulations. These will operate alongside non-statutory guidance to provide further detail about this measure as a whole. I hope the Noble Baronesses has felt my explanation and the justification for this -- these regulations helpful.

I would therefore kindly ask Baroness Coffey to withdraw her amendments. I apologise for the length of the explanation but it is a complex area.
16:07
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I thank her for her comprehensive response. I would gently set on amendment 22... Amendment 19, it would be within three months. I don't want to quibble unduly. Just to say to the Minister, there is definitely concern about what sort of development orders can be in place. The government is currently publishing in this bill and elsewhere all sorts of things about devolution, so whether local development orders could be now become part of this when they would not necessarily be suitable, or indeed simplify planning zones.

I think that's why there is still some anxiety but perhaps I will write further to the Minister and we can have a nice cup of tea and chat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further. With that, I withdraw the amendment. Is a Your Lordships' House -- is at your Lordships pleasure that the at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that close three stand question is that close three stand as part of the bill. As many of that opinion say, "Content". Those in the opinion say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I have amendments 24 and 25 in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have amendments 24 and 25 in my name. In addition to close 4, were name. In addition to close 4, were the government seeks to remove certain pre-application requirements. Two of these are ones requirements. Two of these are ones requirements. Two of these are ones about which I am concerned about.. The first seeks to omit the duty to The first seeks to omit the duty to consult in the second -- and the second is the duty to consult with second is the duty to consult with the local community.

These are very significant changes made to the significant changes made to the application requirements that were
16:09
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
application requirements that were introduced in the 2008 Planning Act. In my experience, pre-application is an extremely helpful part of the process as it enables information to be shared and discussed both by the communities that will be affected and their elected representatives, so councillors and members of Parliament. So the value of a pre- application duty to consult seems to me to be vital but particularly in relation to infrastructure schemes. The opportunity for communities that are affected to understand the proposals and their impact is much reduced by a process which is followed by large-scale for large- scale -- for large-scale infrastructure applications.

This is set out in the explanatory notes very well. At the pre-examination stage, members of the public in register as interested parties. And the examination in public. So the opportunities for the general public, not those who feel they are able to take part in examination and public process, are extremely limited. Therefore, the pre- application stage becomes even more important in relation to a large- scale infrastructure applications. In my experience, the importance of the application process is that it can be invaluable to both the developer and the local community.

For example - now, this is not a large-scale infrastructure application, but it is for 400 homes on a site where I live, and there was a pre-application consultation stage with the members of the public. This is on a site that was known to be used as coal workings. The official coal board documents did not identify precisely were all the mine shafts were. They did not know how many mineshaft there were. However, local knowledge new and residents whose family had lived in the area for a long time new where the mine shafts were and share that knowledge with the developer.

They were also able to share information which did not seem to exist formally at all of the shallow tunnelling on the site. In this instance, the housing developer gained considerably from the pre- application process in knowing where the mine shafts were, knowing where the shallow tanners -- tunnels were that could require attention during the construction phase. And the local residents benefited because it enabled them to understand and be provided with factual information by the applicant.

So the changes proposed in the bill remove the duty to consult with the local community which in my view would be totally. Members of the community will get information about the proposal, which may not be accurate. If there isn't a pre-application opportunity. I know from experience that once inaccurate information is shared on social media sites, it is very difficult to canter and to get the actual situation accepted. The climate in which development takes place these days as for the public to believe the worst is going to happen.

Now, if the preoccupation -- pre-application estate for large- scale infrastructure is believed to be too lengthy and take too long, and have too many parts to it, it would seem to me that the best way forward would be to retain the principal of pre-application, but to reform the process so that it wasn't reform the process so that it wasn't so timely and in terms of delaying any construction processes. So that seems to me why the pre-application process is absolutely vital.

Removing the duty will simply make the process more challenging for the developer and resentment and frustration will grow, both against the development and the failure of the democratic process. Living in a democracy does involve making time for debate and challenge. It is the price we on these benches are willing to pay. A big to move. -- I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. Leave out paragraph A.
16:15
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

paragraph A. I rise to speak to this group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this group of amendments. My noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering has the group McIntosh of Pickering has the group some of the amendments. I signed some of hers. There is a risk I might end up duplicating perhaps in the next debate, but not intending to. Overall, the Noble Baronesses Lady Bennett has just explained, actually, very eloquently on why pre-application consultation really matters. I've already shared with matters. I've already shared with the house my experience with NSIPs.

I can honestly say that too often a lot of this initial ideas of what happens with some of these developments is just literally a desktop exercise and then when the village hall is there, the communities get really frustrated. It's like, have you even been there? Do you not know about this particular issue? Who on earth have you spoken to before looking at you spoken to before looking at you spoken to before looking at This sort of activity starts to cause resentment.

And I am conscious that, for some reason, the process can actually go on forever and it should not. When you have something as as this, I give huge credit to them for actually being there because they are in it for the long haul and already in the community and trying to explain things and, also, candidly, a lot of the community wanted it at size will unseat because it would bring jobs and real value to people in the area and with some of the other projects, there will not be any jobs.

It will just be big projects, cables, disruption. Farmers, local communities more generally, and they seem to do a lot on the desktop exercises and they genuinely look like they have not got a clue. That is why I encourage the government to think again on the wider process that is happening with regard to what is going on with these. We all know that usually the developer will get their way but it is better to be informed and, for example, washer levels, energy companies did not have a clue that it would have the most water-deprived parts of the country, farmers, decades ago, enhanced washer processes by going underground and having a sophisticated irrigation network and the plan would have ripped through all of that and destroyed farming in that part of the county, river.

And they did not have a clue. They had not properly done the work in the consultation, or even getting ready for it. And so I recognise some people, that can all be sorted out at the planning application process. By then, the local community has lost faith, trust, and assume it is a done deal and wonder what is going on. And, from my perspective, genuine local experience, encouraging the government to consider how this is going to help.

Yes, you can bulldoze, a developer can bulldoze through and be confident that they will get these applications but I would suggest that they have reconsideration. Further into clause 5 and I would suggest to the other aspects that we should be looking carefully at why some of those takes as long as it does and they are are opportunities to streamline this but I am concerned about, all of a sudden, people effectively being ignored and screened out of the process and I've always found it odd in this country that anyone can apply for and get planning application online that they do not own.

They could get planning permission to build a house in someone's garden. They might not get it can certainly apply. I have always found it odd and so when we get to the situation where public benefit is determined, discussing compulsory purchase orders later on, it is only right that the people affected, the local authorities and councillors are involved in understanding how that will fit together. And that is why I'm concerned and I've tabled so many amendments to clause 5 as well.

In terms of most of my amendments, they are quite technical and trying to undo what the government is doing and so the Minister might be relieved but I don't expect a comprehensive response to every amendment I have to build but it is the thread of what we are trying to achieve and, as a consequence, I'm hopeful that the government will reconsider and I will speak again in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next group. As it is committee stage, I have simple questions about the
16:22
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
simple questions about the application and trying to remove this -- to move the conversation forward. The requirements different in a local plan? The coal mine, water extraction, it seems to me that they should be in the local plan and there is a problem because more than half of them are not up to date and this is something which was a concern when I was moving to committee. And secondly, presumably, a developer would do a voluntary , or is that not practical? I had experience in large retail developments and we do this sort of stuff a lot because we wanted local consent and so it is a question of what you can do that is voluntary and what is required and, thirdly, what are the biggest delay factors in the process? Is it transport objections, heritage, environmental factors like neutrality? Is it lawyers going in circles? I've looked at the problems and so there is a difficulty with the process and my first question would be, is there an alternative route where you have a shorter process and perhaps with a deadline or perhaps only for the bigger, not for a small extension but just for the big schemes and it does seem that this is an important area in local communities but we want to get these delays done.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend. I amendment of my noble friend. I think pre-application consultation and, as she said, it gives and, as she said, it gives communities a chance to shape proposals and can't also speed
16:24
16:26
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I rise briefly to first of all strongly offer support to the entire presentation and the amendments they noble lady has. I cannot top the example of the ground that she gave but my example is much smaller and small scale and addresses the point raised by the noble lady and she said that the mines should be on record and we know that they are often not. It is the question of the local community and how it works.

This is something which will never be written down and the example I was thinking of was from central London, and I was in a meeting with the council who came along excitedly with the idea that it was going to build housing and a new community centre on for most people, from the outside, thought was a small and unpleasant corner shop and a little row of shops that you get in urban areas and that the council offices were visibly astonished when local people, mostly elderly, were just up in arms and horrified about the idea of shops being demolished and what they said was that they were not mobile enough to get to the high street and they were scared of the traffic and the speed at which it goes, even though the shops are expensive and do not have a great range of goods etc and the hugely due the shops.

And so that is a small steel example of the fact of how communities work is some thing that only these communities themselves will now and if they could get earlier input, they would not have been the same lots of pensioners at the meeting as we saw. And briefly I want to pick up the point of 407 in the name of Baroness Miller which I think is important Miller which I think is important and picks up the kind of use of technology, potentially positive, and sets out rules for the use of technology and, because this is where lots of compelling stories come from, this is also from Camden and the centre which was imposed at the local community and I find it of retrospective interest and I was the chair of the planning and action committee which imposed this a long time ago.

One thing that happened with that was spent it was finally built, said it did not look anything like the pictures. I think that this is something we are all extremely familiar with and the idea of creating some standards and rules which already exist but putting them into the statute seems to be an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extremely good idea. First of all, I apologise. I should have mentioned my interest as
16:29
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
should have mentioned my interest as a counsellor earlier in the debate and so my apologies for that and I would like to thank the Baroness for her leadership on this important group of amendments and clause 4 systematically approves several application requirements. I would like to first focus on amendment 25 which seeks to retain section 47 of the planning act and the duty to consult with the local community. I would ask the Minister to clarify the position of the government because ministers have briefly stated the bill does not in any way reduce local democratic input.

If that is the case, the Minister, can be explained by the duty to consult communities is being removed? How did the government arrive at the decision to remove section 47 of the Planning Act? As my noble friend raise, what are the specific problems that they are trying to resolve in doing so? From experience, we know that when local communities have genuine influence communities have genuine influence over planning through mechanisms in place, they are often more supportive of new housing and infrastructure and we have heard cases from the noble Baroness and...

I apologise. Cases where input added significant value and especially when it reflects local needs like affordable housing, safeguards, green space, and with local infrastructure approval. Indeed, neighbourhood plans introduced under the act of 2011, in many cases, lead to more houses being approved rather than less which suggests that working with communities delivers working with communities delivers Turning to amendment 34 -- 24, this section is highly significant. It contains seven important subsections, one of which clearly states " Before preparing the statement, the applicant must consult each local authority that is within section 43 of the act about what is to be in the statement." This required provides a crucial safeguard to ensure that developers engage meaningfully with communities and local authorities.

Again, I ask Noble Baronesses the Minister, what Noble Baronesses the Minister, what is the government does make precise objection to retaining this part of the act? What part has been identified that justifies its removal? Insured, local engagement and democratic participation are not obstacles to development. There are key ingredients to sustainable, inclusive development. If this bill is to command public confidence, mustn't weaken those foundations without reason. Amendment 36 is of particular importance to us. This amendment seeks to probe whether the government intends to replace clause 4 with guidance which could lead to regulatory burdens.

Those who wish to consult may indeed still choose to do so. Next, I wish to return to amendments 29, 30 and 31, tabled in the name of Baroness Scott. These amendments seek to probe the hierarchy of considerations, an issue that has already been raised in Group 1 by Lord Hunt. What else could be included in the provision for any such information as may be prescribed? May begin by asking what form should this information be provided and will it scope to set out later in regulation? Secondly, I wish to consider the importance of clarity in this hierarchy.

If it is the case that a particular requirement is intended to take precedence over another, will that be set out in guidance? Can Noble Baronesses the Minister please sharpen the focus on what the applicant must specifically include in their application? This allows for greater clarity, precision and the requirements. Understanding the hierarchy of requirements is essential as it enables clear prioritisation when obligations are structured transparency, it becomes easier to distinguish what is mandatory from what is discretionary. This in turn helps both applicants and administrators navigate the process more effectively and ensures that the system is fair and focused.

We will be coming back later in this committee stage of the bill on hierarchy. Next, I wish to address the amendment 33. It seeks to probe whether the provisions of this bill remain applicable and effective in the event of English council reorganisation. As local government structures evolve, whether it is through mergers, boundary changes, the creation of you -- new unitary authorities, it is vital that legislation keeps pace. The effectiveness of Planning and Infrastructure Bill depends heavily on clarity and stability of the administrative bodies tasked with delivering its aims.

Without foresight and flexibility built into the bill, there is a risk that its provisions could become outdated, misaligned or practically unenforceable in areas where government structures have been changed. For example, responsibilities for infrastructure planning and delivery could be transferred to a newlyformed authority that may not be explicitly recognised or empowered by the current wording of the legislation. This could create legal ambiguity, administrative inefficiency, and unintended delays in infrastructure delivery. It is crucial that the government clarifies whether it has considered these eventualities and if not, whether it is open to if not, whether it is open to revising the bill to future proof it ensuring that integrity is maintained.

Our intention is to ensure that these regulations remain lean, proportionate and time- limited. So I ask the Noble Baronesses the Minister what specific pre-application requirements does the government envisage setting out in legislation and how will the government ensure that such requirements do not place a burden on local authorities? The localism act was designed to turn government of Sidon, putting decision-making into the hands of those closest to the local issues. Pre-application consultation with local authorities, the publication of community consultation state and is in provisions for claimants of compensation for the effective development are all important.

What are the arguments for replacing or removing these? As for the Marine and Coastal Access Act, before the decision, there is no legislation of this. We need to be cautious about repealing large sections of this act without a clear replacement framework and a basic understanding for why. Can the Minister help on these issues? Finally, I thank Baroness Coffey for also raising these concerns and for bringing forward amendments 41, 43 and 44. I'm sure we will work closely on this issue as we proceed through committee stage.

 committee stage.
16:37
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness Lady Coffey and two members across the house for the way in which they have engaged with these amendments. We recognise this is a significant evolution to the nationally significant structure projects 13. We all, I'm sure, have experiences of the best in consultation where you get a developer who doesn't just consult but truly engages over a . What we want to do is encourage the former -- the latter. All the amendments in this group seek to in one way or another reverse changes made by the government in the other place.

Those changes will remove statutory duty to consult during the preparation of an application for development consent order. These are significant reforms to the regime and therefore deserving of our attention. May be helpful to revisit the rationale behind the government's decision to amend the planning act in this way. As I outlined in my written ministerial statement on 23 April, the government is committed to driving economic growth and taking decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects before the end of the Parliament. The level of ambition here is high.

As indeed it should be. The UK suffers from outdated and inadequate structure which is holding us back, not only in economic but social terms. To economic but social terms. To And housing, we must be able to change and we are willing to do things differently. I do sense a change in public perception on this as well. I think people are beginning to realise that if you want cheap electricity, if you want water available for housing, for example, but for general use as well, then we need to move more quickly to develop the infrastructure we need.

The government will only meet its critical infrastructure commitment if it takes this opportunity to address the inefficiencies that have crept into the regime over time. One of the most pressing issues is the growing duration of the pre- application phase for projects. In 2021, the average time to secure consent had risen to 4.2 years come up from 2.6 years in 2012. Over the same period, average pre-application timescales doubled. We all recognise that trend is just not sustainable. To respond to the noble Lord Jemison's question over the past year the government has listened to for back from bodies and for back from bodies and With the consent order process.

That includes developers and practitioners, legal experts, local authorities, statutory bodies and a range of other interested bodies who play very important roles in the process. It's become clear through those discussions that the statutory consultation requirements under the planning act, though well intended, are now driving perverse outcomes and unintended consequences. To answer Baroness lady Neville Rolfe's answer Baroness lady Neville Rolfe's point about the reason why that is the case. There are a number of reasons. Including the ones she has stated and others as well.

The legislative requirements are too prescriptive. Rather than fostering the meaningful dialogue we all want to see, the process has become overly procedural, encouraging risk aversion, excessive documentation and a reluctance on the part of applicants to adapt proposals even for fear of travelling further rounds of consultation. That has led to confusion for communities and delays for developers. And to respond to Dennis Miller's point, where there is consultation, developers normally would have the key elements of the consultation included in the report to the included in the report to the planning body -- Baroness Miller.

developers don't have to do anything about what the consultation has said. Often, there will be mitigations in place but they don't have to be. Given all these concerns, it is clear that the statutory consultation requirements and other planning regimes are now acting as an absolute take on progress. The bill proposes to align the regime more closely with other planning frameworks by removing the statutory obligations at the pre- application stage. This changes -- this changes expected to reduce the average time to a year and deliver savings of more than £1 billion across the current project pipeline.

In the long term, faster delivery will also help reduce household bills. As set out in my statement on 23rd April, the government remains firmly committed to a planning system that supports high-quality applications and delivers benefits for both the nation and local communities. We all recognise the best applications are those shaped through early and constructive engagement. As the housing minister emphasised in the other place, we still expect the regime to operate on a frontloaded basis with well developed proposals entering the system and progressing to predictable timescales.

In answer to lady Neville Rolfe, I don't think there is any objection to volunteering pre-consultation, if that's what developers choose to do. Experience from other planning Experience from other planning This can happen with the statutory compulsion and that developers are best placed to judge how to take a proportionate approach to consult on their applications, which vary in relation to their skill, location and circumstances. The development consent order process also incentivises high quality submissions in order to proceed to examination with statutory timescales.

We are confident that developers will continue to engage proactively so that they are well prepared, as well as any consultation and engagement during the early stages of an applications development stop course, interested parties also have the opportunity to raise objections, contribute views on present evidence through participation in the examination process. To support and inform the implementation of these changes, the government will launch a consultation about guidance later this summer, setting out the best practice involving developers and consultation engagement prior to consultation.

The regime relies on developers bringing projects forward to deliver national policy and meet the UK need for infrastructure. We know the industry has responded positively to the removal of the statutory requirement, with many major developers confirming their commitment to meaningful engagement. There committed to exploring new and better ways to engage with communities. If these amendments were accepted, we would risk undermining the very purpose of the bill and the will of members and the other place who requested this change to deliver a lasting and transformative improvements to the regime.

The current system will be made burdened by risk averse behaviours and a lack of clarity for communities. For these reasons, I would respectfully urge noble Lords not to press these amendments. I turn to clause 5 of the bill and amendments tabled to it. Given the importance of course five, I hope noble Lords will allow me to set out the intended impact of the clause before turning to the amendments in question. The class contains important changes which will enable the government to deliver on the policy intent of the changes in clause 4, which as we discussed today, remove statutory consultation requirements at pre-application stage.

The streamlining of the process is central to the objectives of the Planning and Infrastructure of the Planning and Infrastructure This is for Robert the necessity for a step change so consultation and engagement is meaningful, proportionate, rather than undertaking to follow an overly prescriptive statutory process and so is essentially changes are subject to proper scrutiny and I will take the opportunity to consider the amendments today. I know these amendments were proposed with the intention of supporting the bill but they risk undermining key reforms to the consenting regime.

There is a duty to notify the Secretary of State of applications and extending this to include most local authorities and allows for additional information to be prescribed in legislation and introduces a requirement for guidance to be published from best practice steps to be made in preparing an application. The main issues presented by the amendments and how they notification duty will work and the scope of guidance to support applications. On the first, the bill amends duty on applicants to notify the planning Inspectorate of applications to include local authorities.

Local authorities play an important role in assessing the likely local impact of projects and representing the interests of communities through the DCO process. Early knowledge of applications is fundamental to enable them to prepare for and resource and engage At the formative stage and meaningful engagement with local authorities is in the interest of applicants, given the role that they play in the examination process and to the provision of the local impact reports and that is why the government has included the duty to include that.

The government recognises the importance of creating uncertainty for applicants about what is required through legislation and what should be a matter of discretion for applicants and the clause 5 has a clear definition of a local authority and to provide clarity to applicants about who should be notified and removing this definition would lead to confusion and unnecessary notifications. I know that Lord Jamieson is concerned about whether changes to local government taking place at the moment, as we know. And, as we pursue the reforms, can I reassure the House we are confident the current definition is comprehensive including the post- government reorganisation authorities.

The giving thought to transition arrangements and I will refer to that later. As part of changes to the duty to notify and inform local authorities of impending regulation, we will also look at what other application applicants must provide and removing the power to prescribe further notification as part of the process as proposed limits discretion for to prescribe further information which may be required to ensure that the planning Inspectorate and local authorities are prepared for the submission of this and we will ensure any additional information as appropriate and the government takes a proportionate approach.

Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to applicants to assist in complying with requirements under section 48 and best practice for all aspects of the pre-application application, which reflects the overarching objective to ensure robust applications are prepared in the proportionate way. Amendment 36 remove the provision relating to the guidance and looks to narrow the scope of guidance and include a list of suggestions for guidance itself. This would be a step backwards, introducing guidance solely on engaging with stakeholders and reintroducing the concerns regarding the applicants and this is something the government was looking to address and instead it should focus on overall objectives, how to prepare robust applications in a proportionate way and it includes engagement and is important and had has been outlined by government but it should be restricted and it could risk the repeater behaviours were looking to avoid and a lack of flexibility in the system.

Maintaining up-to-date policy and guidance is essential to deliver on priorities for planning and delivering major infrastructure and they drove the country needs. To respond to Lord Jamieson, the government has committed to making it necessary updates to policy, legislation, guidance in good time, demonstrated to the progress already made towards delivering reviews in a bid to the National policy bid to the National policy statements. Amendment 40 would help provide for applications and this is not necessary because government guidance is updated flexibly and responsibly, as needed.

Turning to the comments table relating to localism and Marine and coastal access act, technical provisions are consequential to removal of the requirement to consult and, if passed, it could mean the statute book would reference parts of the Planning Act which no longer exist. I thank the Baroness for the amendment and hope the information is helpful and I would urge the Lords to withdraw those amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning to the amendment tabled by Lady Miller,... It might be useful for the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It might be useful for the House to know that I'd asked for this to be decrypt and I'm not sure what happened but I intend to move it in happened but I intend to move it in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I will I will not I will not go I will not go into I will not go into the I will not go into the detail I will not go into the detail now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not go into the detail now but I will come back to it and it was listed in this group and so my apologies for the misunderstanding and I look forward to the debate on and I look forward to the debate on the subject. And so can I ask the Bulldogs you have amendments in the Bulldogs you have amendments in the group 2 withdraw them?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

group 2 withdraw them? I would like to thank all of the
16:53
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noble Baroness is including Baroness Coffey, Baroness Bennett, for the supportive words for the amendments that I have tabled. My noble friend summed it up when she said it is important to take the community with you. That is the message to developers and the response from the Minister was that it will be the decision to developers for the they are going to engage in the pre- application consultation and I do not know about the experience of others but my experience of developers is that if you give them an inch, it will take a mile and not requiring the statutory application will mean that communities do not understand the detail and the broad-brush approach of a development that will impact, for better or for worse, but it will impact.

And so, if the issue, the Minister spoke but clearly, about the delays and costs of the application consultation and if that is the problem that is, she has stated, surely the approach should be to reform what is required in the pre-application and I will very briefly... I have just had experience of a pre-application process of a very long change to a major highways route through the area in which I live, about 50 miles long.

I think we have had, it could be three, possibly four levels of public consultation and, in the end, nobody was satisfied because nothing has changed substantially from the first one when the changes were made and so it seems to be that what could happen is to reform the pre- application process so that people's voices are heard and change is made where appropriate and then tweaked as the process goes on. There is no legitimate reason for not allowing people to have their voices heard and I feel strongly about this and no doubt the Minister will cure me again at the report stage but I beg leave to withdraw with that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 26.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 26. I am delighted to speak to the
16:56
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to speak to the amendments in the group and I thank Baroness Coffey for signing a number Baroness Coffey for signing a number of amendments. The reason I asked for this to stand is that it is to have the opportunity for short debate relating to the changes that the government has brought in at a late stage in clause 4 and five of the bill and understand the background to this change. The noble Ladies referred to, in summing up, the guidance and perhaps she might be able to elaborate more on that subject in terms of what I'm going to say.

Obviously, the bill removes the requirement of the developer under the planning act of 2008 two carry out application consultation on the proposed project and that will remove category one and two persons and I understand these are both owners and occupiers of the land and I can understand the need and desire for the government to speed up delivery of infrastructure but it raises major concerns among the agricultural community about removing the duty to consult and, as we have previously established in debates in earlier groups, the consultation processes essential and can speed up the process but it's essential for landowners and employers who are directly impacted by a project and for the developer and this process enables the developer to gain essential feedback from landowners and occupiers.

They will be directly impacted. I'm sure the Minister would agree that the earliest possible consultation and dialogue would allow the occupier to understand how they might be impacted by the project and to seek changes at the earliest opportunity to mitigate the impact, such as changing the location of a pylon, as my noble friend stated and pylons and other major infrastructure impacted by the bill will have a big impact on the farming community. Once we are at the stage of statutory consultation and the application for the scheme moves, it will be too late to get any change to the scheme.

The government have included an amendment to place the consultation was guidance, as the noble lady referred and the guidance to developers around consultation and, amongst others, the National Farmers' Union is concerned if the guidance is not detailed and prescriptive enough and landowners and occupiers might not then be able to provide details about the schemes and the intended location and so, therefore, it will not be possible to seek changes with the developer to reduce the impact of the scheme.

The pre-application consultation should be mandatory and not just guidance and, as the noble lady remarked in the previous group, if you give a developer an inch, they will take more than a mile. Understanding the clause was added at a late stage in the proceedings in the other place by the government at the committee stage, then, just trying to understand why the government and apartment brought in the changes and particularly as organisations like the National Farmers' Union bit of supported the additional drafting of the bill in respect to the pre-application requirements and in the of you there would have been a better balance between speeding up infrastructure and adequately consulting impacted parties.

In referring to the amendments in the group, 26, 27, 32, 35, 39, 42, the main amendment is in fact 26 and this states the requirement to consult the category two persons and the other amendments are not consequential to that reintroduction of the consultation of category one and two persons and so I would like to ask the Minister to reply and to understand why it is that the government has replaced this pre-application consultation with two very directly affected categories of person, the occupier and the landowner and replace it with guidance from which they would be excluded and perhaps the Minister could give us a little more understanding of what the guidance will cover and by the government felt it was necessary to remove the consultation on pre-application of Simply put to her that there are essential and good reasons to consult with the owners at the earliest possible stage and it may affect be the case that if the Government were to reinstate it they would get a speedier agreement, which is what they seek.

Owners and occupiers of the land have the closest possible interest in any development on that land and I can see no good reason, no democratic reason, as to why they were excluded from the earliest possible consultation at the essential pre- application stage, as well as any application on their land and that also includes tenants with equal rights and occupiers as essential farmers of the land with these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remarks, I beg to. Amendment proposed, clause 4, insert the following new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall list. I would add my name to several of my Noble Friends amendments and I agree with pretty much every word that she has just said, and I make my point in this group.
17:03
17:05
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness and supported variously by the noble Baroness coffee, speak to the important principle of consultation with those that would be affected by changes that are often best placed to avoid information and develop ahead of time. I appreciated the comments of the noble Baroness the Minister on the previous group in consultation, and, in particular, that they, themselves, were going to a consultation on providing the optimum guidance for consultation in the future.

Despite the consultations I do actually find it positive. I do think it is important at this stage to really consider what this consultation means and the Houses of Parliament and indeed your Lordships house itself is tasked constitutionally with consultation and review. And reviewing the government's proposal in detail and providing feedback with the intention of making the proposal better more workable in practice category 1 and to, as we have had, are definitions that refer to persons with significant interest.

They know, quite literally, the lay of the land, the constraints, and the opportunities that could be faced by any developer. An advance. The benefit of the knowledge and experience of these parties must not be understated. One obvious way to prevent that element is to promote good consultation. We are keen to see spades and the ground, develop start to get under way and make sure there's no point if we get bad developments in the wrong place or where they are not appropriate.

We have a duty to deliver and also to deliver responsibly. Removing requirements to consult with key parties means that Government increasingly runs the risk of championing bad development and there is a question of buy in. Government will find public do not appreciate being done to rather than being done with. Does this not strike into the heart of what the Government is trying to do with this will? The Government will find that if it does not undertake responsive program carefully with close reference to the very people they are to exclude noting that previous comments that they will not be thanked for it and consultation with stakeholders is, as noble Lords who are business minded will know, are an important way to gain approval,
17:08
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, turning to amendments 26, 27, 32, 35, 39 and 42 tabled for the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh, I am grateful to her for her amendments. And thanking the noble Baroness coffee for her comments and the noble Baroness Pinnock who referred to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I am afraid in this instance the baby has gotten so fat it cannot get out of the bath. As I have previously outlined over the course of this debate, these amendments seek to undo a number of amendments tabled by the Government in The Other Place to remove the statutory department for applicants to consult in the preparation of an application.

Given the significant change was introduced in the passage undertake that point for all noble Lords I would not outline again the government's motivations to make the change, and a particular aspect of concern has been the increasing length of time spent pre-application stage, resulting in the way in which statutory requirements have been complied with. As outlined, consultation has become a tick box exercise everyone I was referring to any other coverages risk aversion and goldplating. Without concluded that these requirements are now serving to slow schemes down rather than speed them up, and that the consultation that is taking place is meaningful to the people that are involved and becomes a tick box exercise, so bringing in these changes we want to speed up the typical period of time taken to submit applications and further save money from the pipeline of projects from this Parliament, we are committed to a system that encourages high-quality applications which delivers benefits to the nation and to local communities.

We all know that high-quality applications are those that have been developed to early and meaningful engagement with those impacted, including local authorities, statutory consultees, communities, and landowners. Affected individuals will, of course, still be able to object applications, providing evidence and impact on the participation the process through which applications are exempt and as I have already explained in making these changes the Government is clear that this does not signify the consultation and engagement is no longer important, just that the current system is not working well for either developers or communities.

Guidance will be forthcoming and how the engagement can be undertaken so that applicants can produce a high quality application and we look forward to engagement on this matter and I take the noble Lords point about consultation, but he is right, in this case, it is necessary. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to consider whether an application is suitable to proceed to examination and be examined under statutory timeframes and that the guidance will outline best practice to answer the noble Baroness Macintoshes point and I cannot give her any absolute detail because, as we said, we are consulting on it, but what we will do is it will outline the best practice that will involve the application engagement, the planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State will continue to issue advice to applicants under section 51 of the act and have regards to the extent to which applicants have regard in the advice and these changes will provide flexibility so that applicants can undertake engagement in the way that they consider this for their proposed development in accordance with that guidance and I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh to withdraw her amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to you for the remarks and the way you have spoken but I meant to give a big shout out
17:11
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
but I meant to give a big shout out to actually lodge parks the public bill office, I know how hard the Government frontbench are working, but I understand there are only four clocks in the public bill office that are assisting us with our amendments, so I am deeply grateful to them for their assistance in this regard. I am grateful to my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey, Lord Jamieson, for all their support, and I think they made a very good point.

I find it staggering though that together with the loss of hope and value and the new provisions that we will come to later under the purchase of land just how shabbily treated farmers and landowners are by the Government and plenty of opportunities to elaborate on those arguments. I do regret, as well, that the Government is actually consulting in the guidance at the moment, but it is regrettable that we are not in possession of the guidance that we are not able to remove clause 4, or at least to reintroduce the consultation at that stage of category two persons, it seems, profoundly, undemocratic and profoundly rude in their words of Baroness pillock and I will call this a later stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw.

Wye is it your chips treasure that the amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is, by, withdrawn, the question of the clause. Part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. The question is the close. Part

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the close. Part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 27, not moved, amendment 28, amendment 29, 30, 31, amendment 32, not moved, amendment 33, not moved. Amendment amendment 33, not moved. Amendment 34, not moved, amendment 35, not moved, amendment 36, and moved, amendment 37, not moved, amendment 38, not moved, amendment 39, not moved amendment 40, not moved.

moved amendment 40, not moved. Amendment 41, not moved, amendment Amendment 41, not moved, amendment 42, not moved, amendment 43, not moved. Amendment 44, not moved. The moved. Amendment 44, not moved. The question is that clause 5 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 45,
17:14
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Scott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment in this group, amendment 45, which seeks to enhance 45, which seeks to enhance transparency in the developed consent order of the DCO, acceptance process. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons whenever an application is not accepted under the relevant subsections of clause the relevant subsections of clause 6, along with the desired statutory or regulatory basis for such a decision. This is a simple, yet decision.

This is a simple, yet crucial step towards ensuring accountability and transparency in a decision-making process. By decision-making process. By explicitly identifying the legal explicitly identifying the legal grounds on which an application is rejected, the amendment helps to eliminate ambiguity and reinforces eliminate ambiguity and reinforces the rule of within the planning system. Currently, developers face significant uncertainty and frustration when their applications are rejected without clear are rejected without clear explanations. This can hinder timely resubmission by leaving applicants resubmission by leaving applicants unsure of what issues need to be addressed or whether the rejection was based on procedural, technical, or substantive grounds.

The resulting delay not only increased the costs and administrative burden for developers but can also stall projects that may be vital to meet national in and environmental goals. By mandating the publication of detailed reasons and the relevant legal basis, this amendment will Rather Rather than Rather than interpreting Rather than interpreting big refusals and ultimately the clarity benefits not just applicants but also the public and planning authorities, trust, improving communications, and by reducing avoidable procedural disputes.

Transparency must be at the forefront of this legislation, especially in the planning system were significant public and private were significant public and private There is a broader aim of developing trust both developers and communities and I look forward to the assurance from the Minister that the transparency in the process is being taken seriously and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy will not lead to poor decision-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making. I beg to move. The amendment as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I can see this amendment reducing
17:17
17:18
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is an interesting amendment and in domestic, pretty get that big of a planning applications, domestic of a planning applications, domestic planning applications, the infrastructure process, it is obviously applications that are refused that get a decision notice with a list of reasons for refusal and this gives the developer the opportunity to review the laws and to resubmit with relevant changes. And this gets to the heart of the way that the infrastructure process works for applications in that there is, we have a reduction in the application process and the examination will be restricted and, consequently, as the honourable member says, the only result is the judicial review.

And so this is why the whole process for infrastructure application requires a rethink, in my view, because the pre-application stage would throw up some problems that the Baroness has referenced in terms of what might be the causes of refusal and she is quite right that a big infrastructure application, there ought to be some reasons given for the rejection of the proposals and so, again, if you want here is anxious that critical infrastructure gets the go ahead and it must be given the go-ahead within the right framework of openness and consultation and listening to communities and, at the minute, it seems that some of that framework is being removed and it will be in the hands of developers, come what may.

I hope the Minister will give us process. process.
17:21
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
We are all optimists. The sixth clause of the bill amends the acceptance stage for applications for development consent and the noble Baroness table an amendment to the clause which was sitting to ensure the Secretary of State published the reasons and identified the statutory or regulatory basis and at the acceptance stage, the planning inspector, on behalf of the Secretary of State will consider whether an application for an infrastructure project should proceed to examination and this test has applications for the largest and most complex schemes on the basis of whether they can be examined and the strict statutory timeframe set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Let's not forget that these provide much- needed certainty and clarity and in the planning reform working paper on streamlining infrastructure consent which was published in January, it indicated that often the applicants take a risk-averse approach to the test as a refusal or withdrawal can delay projects and harm investor confidence. They will often gulp with the application and undertake additional consultation and delay the applications from coming forward , clause 6 updates the acceptance test, not just to account for the removal of consultation at the application stage but also to increase the flexibility of the acceptance stage so the applicants are more likely to come forward sooner and, in doing so, it amends To suitable To suitable to To suitable to proceed To suitable to proceed to examination and this wording brings the test closer to the objective of this part of the process.

The amendment proposed would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons and explain why application has been rejected and, where not complied with, the proposed sections 55, two, five, will protect developers from arbitrary rejection. developers from arbitrary rejection. The government agrees with the intention to prevent the arbitrary projections for applicants and in part that is what has motivated them to introduce section 50 5E and we want to allow for the corrective action when needed to enable the acceptance rather than outright rejection of applications and,, for the reasons I will shortly a claim, we do not think the amendment is necessary because existing 55 that a provide planning for applicants.

The government expects the new provision will be used where an application does not strictly comply with requirements but the application can quickly address deficiencies or gaps. For example, regulations in the planning act require plans to be of a specified size and scale and this includes specific requirements where multiple sheets are provided and where applications need revision to comply with these other requirements, the process will allow for changes to be made easily and if an application would previously have been rejected and the subsections of the clause also require the Secretary of State to inform the applicant of what changes are needed and when they are needed by and, moreover, the regime is built around strong principles of transparency and fairness and the Secretary of State will still be able to provide the applicant with reasons for why the application has not been accepted.

The planning Advice for potential applicants under section 51 of the planning act 2008 and before an application is submitted and it is required to publish the advice on the website and therefore the advice to the applicant of the application stage which can be used to highlight a more significant concern is already made publicly available and given the planning act already requires an explanation to be provided to applicants for why it has been rejected, we don't believe these amendments are required. The government is committed to guidance to support consultation and engagement for nationally significant in the structure projects this summer, as I've outlined already.

As part of the consultation, we would very much welcome news of the acceptance of applications and guidance required to support the changes in the bill and, in particular, we recognise the importance of ensuring that the requests made to the applicants to provide additional information are proportionate and ensure the guidance alongside the change makes that clear and for all these reasons, I hope the Baroness is reassured and will, I would ask you to withdraw the amendment.
17:26
17:27
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
country, say, "Not content.". I am the chief engineer and I am working with the culture of the legislation on nuclear. You have had a number of discussions already in early groups on the tensions that exist potentially between competing objectives and things like growth, nature, net zero, and the issues with the regulators and the principal when it comes to large structure. That has resulted in a regulatory system that is stopping large energy infrastructure from being built. And so solar farms, windfarms, power stations.

Therefore, is destructive to the environment not to mention the growth agenda. Some well-known examples have come up in previous groups. A lesser-known example is a worm which builds and lives in tubes on the seabed and I hope you noble Lord will be with me for a minute and this is involved with the partner. The conservation lobby for the offshore wind projects actually advised compensation for impacts in the area and it requires a place in the seabed, even in areas where the area is not present, even where it is not present and that resulted in a delay of two years to offshore wind farms, including the trio of Norfolk projects including Vanguard Eastern Vanguard west and these projects consented in 2021-22 and have since been sold and had been delayed by approximately two years due to the inability to satisfy seabed compensation requirements and this is really holding up infrastructure that is top priority for net zero and energy security for the UK and examples like this are commonplace across infrastructure and add billions in costs and years in Delhi and I think the noble Lord mentioned the 44,000 pages of the environmental assessment that is a stack of paper five is a stack of paper 5m high, taller than a double-decker bus and the planning application for the lower Thames crossing is over 3000 pages and a total of 61 miles end-to-end and five times the size of the cross itself.

Part of the solution comes later in the bill when we get to part three but an important piece of the puzzle is the regulators themselves and how they are set are and so what the amendment does, in effect, is put duties on the relevant regulators and of the scope limited to elections and the projects and it takes into account the benefits as well as the local environmental impacts of the project and so by putting the duty on the environment agency and the nature of the contribution bodies, the regulators will be directed to consider the broader benefits of that generation infrastructure and to balance these with the local environmental impact and so it is that macro versus macro view and at the moment regulators are concerned with local environmental impacts of a particular piece of info structure and they are not concerned with the potential benefits that the piece of Could be a number of different pieces to consider here, such as net zero which is easily defined for those targets and this duty is entirely consistent with Government policy and with were commissioned by the Government and also in the review that was undertaken recently by DEFRA regulators, and actually recommendation for in that review I consolidate the statutory duties reflecting the government's core priorities in helping to provide discretion, and he states, for example, the duty to deliver on climate change and net zero, and went on to say that this would address the increasing regulator specific and generic obligations in the resulting overload and it is also consistent with the state of nature and climate announcements which the Secretary of State put forward in The Other Place under 14th of July, and the duty is on regulators and actually noble Lords that worked on this in previous years, for example, with the duty based on Ofgem as part of the Energy Act 2023, there's a piece here to get those duties back on regulators consistent right across the piece to ensure that systems level joined up, so I do think, as has been set out in previous groups as well that regulators are essential to the whole piece and the right duty is placed on the regulators would help to better balance those tensions that the noble Lords have referred to this week, in net zero, biodiversity, and really it is all about the top-down cultural change in the organisation, enabling better outcomes, what needs to be added to that is the bottom up view on areas like the Habitat regulation that will come to later on in committee, so I do urge the nobility the Minister to consider this change which will help to resolve the concerns for noble lords in the infrastructure and will help enable not only the 2030 target but the broader economic competitiveness and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

growth. Amendment proposed after clause 9

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 9 inside the following new clause as printed on the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise to speak to particularly amendment 46 a which I particularly amendment 46 a which I already tabled and this is a good
17:34
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
already tabled and this is a good example of trying to meet the bill, so what we are trying to do is to speed up aspects of planning, infrastructure and decisions, sorry, planning decisions on infrastructure, and yet, also, in this bill We will not cope heavily into pottery at all, the whole aspect of how you could meet that environmental improvement, and this is quite a simple, straightforward amendment. I am actually very grateful to Alexei Colver who I have been engaging with through the dip on Tuesday the ninth, I think she is cancelled there to see how this is coming together, and, in essence, it is basically saying that the bill, as it stands, naturally is tasked with creating this environmental delivery plan, there are certain aspects that we are concerned about, so hopefully, almost paraphrasing, it will improve on the environment, but, in essence, that is the document that will be created and approved by the Secretary of State in order to make sure that we do see improvements.

Therefore, for me, it is exceptionally logical that whenever the Secretary of State in another department is making a decision on exit projects, considering where the national policy statement has effect, that they also, in effect, have to consider the environmental delivery plan as it is. In that section 104 of the 2008 planning act, already the Secretary of State has to consider the policy statements, policy documents if relevant, of the aspects regarding local impacts and any other matters the Secretary of State thinks are important and I think this is absolutely critical.

All these changes are being done, particularly in part three, the Government is saying that they can have the best of both by doing this, and this will make certain that they and this will make certain that they have to consider, and also make sure that it is actually going to get delivered, and therefore that is why I brought this at this stage of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to support the noble Lords amendment 46, though in
17:36
17:38
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise chiefly to offer support for the Noble Lady Baroness Coffey's amendment, 46 a, and responding perhaps to the challenge from the perhaps to the challenge from the Noble Lord hunt, of course the Government will do this and I am afraid that this is something that in your Lordships house and he may be speaking for his own Government that we are making more for potential future Governments and we cannot know how they would behave, and that is a reason to put such things on the face of the bill.

And I also have to respond both to the speeches of the Noble Lord hunt, with a little reminder that we are one of the corners of this planet and if our regulators have not succeeded in doing the job that they should have done in protecting nature, then the unset that is not to take away more power from the regulators, make them work better, by all means, but what this bill currently does, and will, undoubtedly, as the number Baroness Coffey said come to at great lengths, what this bill does is takes away an enormous amount of protection of nature which is a huge problem, but I wonder when talking 46 a, coming to DEFRA's own words, that this is from a look in 2025, a blog post that we can assume is representing the Governments own view, and to start with a statement that I can only agree with.

Nature is the bedrock of our entire way of life. That is, as I often put it, the economy is a complete subset of the environment, none of the economy exists without a healthy environment, and that bloggers actually seeking to feed the Nature Restoration Fund, the environment delivery plans, all of the steps that this Government is introducing W might say that it is a little bit too vehement for it so good, the tone of that really sounds offensive, but, nonetheless, I think that we could all think of examples of a case where the Government is doing something for nature on one hand and with other policies doing enormous damage with another and one of the other obvious examples that comes to mind here is Pete, it is terribly important for nature, climate, large amounts of money is being spent to support them.

We also have a continuation of the land use driven through the shifting and burning of large amounts of peat, causing great deals of damage and we have continued horticultural use of peat, so we try to restore something while continuing to allow the destruction of it, so that's why think this needs to be on the face of the bill because we cannot guarantee I could put down many more examples where the Government essentially, is facing in two directions at once and nature is being torn down the middle as a result.

result.
17:41
17:42
17:43
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, this has been a very interesting to amendments to think about. On the one hand, the Noble Lord quite rightly points to the fact that significant delays in windfarms and obviously because of windfarms and obviously because of demands by the regulators in these areas, there is the tension that we started this committee day with which is if, as a country, or the world, we do not go down the net zero rout, there will not be nature to protect because most of Norfolk and Suffolk will disappear under the waves of the North Sea, so there has to be some balancing act between retention and restoration of nature, not the wilful destruction of it, but at the same time, enabling the move towards net zero that we must do and do at speed, so I am glad I not in a ministerial position where I have got to do that, but that seems to me, what has to happen.

And it will not please everybody. That is also true. The other issue that has come into this debate, and I think that I called the Noble Lord which is the egregious behaviour of regulators, but it is this Parliament that provides the duties for regulators and it is this Parliament, not this one, but a parliament, that has demanded that regulators look after the marine environment of nature England, all the rest of it, so it is time to pull all of the moving parts together and understanding where we have to do the trade-offs.

And so I have great sympathy with the Noble Lord amendments. Also here about the importance of continuing to protect and preserve nature. That is what this bill ought to be able to do, not sure, in fact at the moment, it does not, and I am hoping that by continual discussion we will find a route through if the Government is
17:46
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Arrives to speak to amendment 46 in the names of Lord Ravensdale and Lord Krebs. It's interesting yet again as mentioned by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, I remembered this time, Baroness Kinnock, we again? -- Keep coming back to this question of priorities a, hierarchy, the role of regulators and I particularly note the comments of Baroness Pinnock that actually we need to start resolving this and address this issue and I'm sure that on the side of the House we shall be coming back to this as we progress through the spill.

I would like to focus in particular on this amendment. There is no doubt that we have to address the issue of low carbon energy low carbon infrastructure, is going to be essential to hitting our zero carbon target and addressing the challenges of climate change while we support the efforts to advance green energy we must also guard against an unbalanced approach particularly one that risks compromising the reliability and resilience of our energy systems. Low carbon generation should not be considered in isolation, as I believe the noble Lord mentioned, or privileged above all other forms of infrastructure.

The grid as we know it is undergoing rapid change, the government's ambition to rebuild us round renewable sources in the last five years has rooted in ideology. So that -- solar and wind are by nature intermittent, they cannot provide the stable backbone that the grid requires the stability of our electricity system depends on what is known as inertia. The capacity to resist sudden fluctuations in frequency. This essential property is delivered by turbines in energy dense technologies such as nuclear, hydro and gas-fired power stations.

It is not delivered by wind or solar farms. Without sufficient inertia we run the very real risk of system destabilisation leading to the worst case, failures and blackouts. We need a serious detailed plan to safeguard the resilience and sovereignty of the U.K.'s energy supply. That means ensuring a mix of technology, including those that deliver system stability and resilience as well as decarbonisation. We have a number of questions which we hope noble Lords can address. Firstly the amendments refer to sustainable development.

A term that invites interpretation. In planning there's audio well understood definition of this in relation to planning application for housing and commercial development. I don't believe that is what is intended here. What precisely is meant here and how is it to be meant here and how is it to be With the existing interpretation of sustainable development. Secondly the list of regulators, why these bodies and by what criteria are they selected? We welcome collaboration but it must be clear and consistent. Finally there's the matter of the Secretary of State's powers to prescribe other relevant bodies by regulation.

That's a significant authority and I would be grateful for clarity on how it will be exercised and scrutinised. While we support the spirit of this amendment we do urge caution and a desire to have a balanced approach. I will brief return to the amendment 46 a table by Baroness Coffey. She raises an important point, so we will be listening carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister's reply, ensuring that planning consent has considered environmental protections which is of course vital and must not be overlooked.
17:50
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Amendment 46 tabled by Lord Ravensdale and Lord Krebs seeks to ensure that in relation to National League for Democracy it can infrastructure projects for low carbon energy relevant authorities such as the environmental agency should have special regard to the need to contribute a certain government environmental targets when making representations as interested parties under the planning act 2008. The amendment specifically refers to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacted -- impact on the Climate Change Act 2008 for top achieving by diverse targets under the Environment Act 2021 and a Genie -- achieving sustainable development as we heard across the debate today and at earlier stages of the bill it's vital we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need.

Not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2015. As my colleagues and the other place noted the bill can deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Development such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. I will just refer to another note I got here if you don't mind. If I could pick up Lord Ravensdale's point about the Corrie review which I think was an important point that review said that the garment would publish a fresh set of outcomes and policy outcomes for regulators with the aim of restating the government prioritising and mandating Great Lakes to use constrained discretion to deliver them.

I think this might answer some of noble Lords questions around this. The government has accepted this recommendation which is one of the nine Corrie recommendations being fast tracked and is moving quickly to publish the first set of strategic policy frameworks but I think noble Lords their constructive and helpful their constructive and helpful proposals which aim to ensure that input from particular consultees is given with the wider context of government targets in mind. Government agrees with the intention behind the amendment put before the House.

I want to reassure noble Lords the government already has the tools it needs to guide public bodies in their engagement with the Development Consent Order process. The energy national policy statements take full account of the government's wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and ensure the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. In particular these national policy statements or critical -- grant critical status to low carbon grant project this means the types of projects the noble Lord is most concerned with have additional weight in the planning balance.

Through this bill the government is introducing a duty on public bodies to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State making those representations referred to in the noble Lords amendment. The government or consult on what guidance about consultation and engagement in the process should contain later this summer as I've already outlined. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the process we will consider alongside government policy in the national policy statements, how we can support the intent of this amendment and for this reason I hope noble Lords are reassured and will be happy to withdraw their amendments.

On Lord Jamieson's request about the definition of sustainability I will consult further and come back to him on further and come back to him on that.. I apologise. I did take the liberty of topping up the time the five minutes I apologise. We will reply on that. I turn now to amendment 46 a table by Baroness Coffey and supported by Baroness Bennett. This seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a nationally significant infrastructure project Secretary of State must take into account any environmental delivery plan applying to the land which will be developed.

This committee will be scrutinising part three of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill at a later sitting. I look forward to it. But -- speak at this amendment today, the planning and infrastructure Bill creates a new type of plan$$JOIN : Environmental delivery plan EDP. Within an area defined in the EDP, Natural England will identify the impact relevant development is expected to have on a defined environmental feature or features. These can be features of the protected sites or protected species, Natural England also tout back of conservation measures would back of conservation measures would rule out weigh the impact of the development on the environmental feature.

This process for developing EDP's and the wider set of safeguards across the NRF will be safe -- subject further discussion under part three. In respect of this amendment the crucial point is that once EDP is approved by the Secretary of State that covers develop the type in question and in the location in question, developers will be able to make payment through the nature restoration levy which would discharge the relevant environmental obligation being addressed through the EDP. Where a developer chooses not utilising EDP they will need to address these environmental obligations under the existing system.

As a decision for the developer it would not be necessary to require the Secretary of State when considering by considering the order to have regard to an EDP that the developer might choose not to use. In the circumstances decision will need to consider whether the application was in line with the existing environmental obligations. Further to this mandating that the Secretary of State must take account of an EDP removes flexibility for the developer on how to discharge environmental obligations. This could impact on the viability of the scheme and would undermine the government's commitment to decide 150 infrastructure planning consent during this Parliament as well as wider growth objectives.

I appreciate there are still some questions in there about how EDPs will work but that is not the subject of today's discussion, will cover that under section 3. Furthermore while the content of an EDP is not intended to be relevant to the planning merits of an insemination, if the Secretary of State determines that an applicable EDP as material and can have regard to it. That is already the case, under section 104D of the planning act 2008 the Secretary of State must have regard to any other matters they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

This could include any relevant EDP. These reasons I hope Baroness Coffey has reassured and will withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister very much for that response, if I can address
17:57
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
for that response, if I can address some of the questions that noble Lords raised so that Lord Jamieson, take his point about sustainable development, he mentioned the specific list of bodies. When we started with this amendment we had a long list of agencies that would be considered within the amendment what we were informed by the Public Bill Office that would present hybridity concerns which is why we limited the subset you can see in the amendment today and the reason we gone with those when I mention the issues we had with regulation of large infrastructure, most of those are to do with the environment agency and the statutory conservation bodies but we have given that power for other bodies to be prescribed in regulation part of the Secretary of regulation part of the Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister, very encouraged by what she said. I did note she talked about the strategic statements in terms of duties and regulators by, but I would note the strength of the statutory duty and I think it's quite important here in pinning down the objectives of regulators, there's a lot of benefit in doing that in Statutory Instruments. I look forward to seeing that further detail and I will come further engagement with the noble Lady the Minister between now and reports.

The now I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn, amendment 46 a by leave withdrawn, amendment 46 a not moved. You are quite right, not moved. You are quite right, not moved. You are quite right, clauses... 10 and 11 stand path. -- Stand path. I stand corrected. The question is clause 10 stand part of the bill. As many are of that the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

Lords Wind -- The "Not Contents" have it. The question is that clause 10 stand part of the bill. As many are of part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 46 a full stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

full stop Not moved though I have to say to the Minister I would like to speak to her about this because I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to her about this because I'm not overly satisfied and may seek to bring this back report otherwise I will withdraw it. Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 46 a is withdrawn? As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Question is that clause 11 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 47 Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come to another clause and essentially what I try to do here is
18:00
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
essentially what I try to do here is to find ways to identify those infrastructure developments which are of critical national importance to see whether there is a way in which we can streamline the process of approvals they have to go through, but also picking up Baroness Coffey and Baroness Kinnock points about the need for democratic legitimacy as well and seeing whether we can use parliamentary whether we can use parliamentary In 47, speaking to 48 and 49 to 65, the two really substantive amendments of 42 and 65, I have got to and relation to judicial review which, because of the mystique of groupings for the first day, really should be grouped with a number of other JR amendments that we can come to later, so I will speak very briefly to those.

My Amendment 52, essentially, create a short Parliamentary process to confirm the Minister's decision in developing consent as a matter of national priority. Likewise, to the late 1990s the system of order confirmation bills whereby Parliament could confirm all of that mainlining Ministers various proposals including infrastructure projects and there are many reviews on the book, so in fact it is a tried and tested approach which we could use for some projects where we need to speed up delivery, but we also need to speed up Parliamentary approval as well.

A kind of development consent order confirmation approach could only take four to six months to go through Parliament, so it would nothing like the complexity of the hybrid Bill which we have seen in relation to HS2, which, ultimately, failed to satisfy anybody, once again built in huge delays and we are we are with his chest to. Having said that the station their building industry pretty good. We can only hope, one day, a trade will actually be able to arrive there.

My Lords, so, the point about this amendment is giving Parliament a vote because I do think I have very much taken this point about the need for Parliament to have a say in some of these matters. And, in essence, it is another trade of. What I am saying here is that there are some projects which do need to be dealt with in a special way. Nationally, taken by Ministers, going through the necessary procedures to ensure that it is appropriate. But given legitimacy by parliamentary vote.

And it certainly seems to me that businesses develop much greater certainty about the investment decisions and, as I have said, it will ensure that we have a proper say in these very important decisions. Amendment 53 related to amendment 52 that would repeal section 150 of the planning act, 2008. I well recall our debates on that regime, because I was a minister involved in it, and because the intention of the regime was designed with the intention of being a one-stop shop infrastructure project in terms of consensus required.

At the most effective section on the planning act has been to stop developing consent orders from being as much as a one-stop shop as they could. Certain regulators have a veto on whether or not a DCO can roll up into it or otherwise have to be maintained for regulators separately. We have already debated the problem of having multi-regulators involved where they do not seem to be able to work together in a coordinated response. I know that there was a debate on this amendment, similar wording was proposed and the Government had some concerns about it, did promise the guidance in how to ramp up the sense in DCO.

to ramp up the sense in DCO. However, problems with that are the regulators have been so remained, which is why I would argue they should be removed and my Amendment 65 could be seen in parallel, so I would seek to enable the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development in this critical national development. Establish an expert critical national task force to advise on each application and find the planning permission and any other regulatory consent for such development deemed to be granted six months after the application is made, unless the Secretary of State shows a written objection within that period or extensor., And, here, my love, I am anticipating the response by my Noble Friend because I noted that she was not very keen on my earlier amendment on timelines because of the fact that different infrastructure developments have different requirements and probably different timelines, so this amendment allows the Government to able to sort of flex the timeline according to circumstances.

And we know, I would argue at the moment, Ministers like the coherent mechanism to prioritise and accelerate delivery of critical infrastructure projects. The DCO consent order regime has not really in the end delivered what we hoped it would deliver when we took it through Parliament, and I believe, I hesitate, again, to mention this, but eight years from the application to consent is just as hopeless and I must say to Heathrow also and I support the third runway at Heathrow because I think that, as the Government has said, this will take place within carbon budget.

But it is just an example of how decisions here can be stuck for decades and we really have to move on from that. So, the amendment I am proposing here would centralise the accountability for the Secretary of State. I would align it to my earlier amendment in relation to parliamentary consent. It would bring consent of a single process, would introduce a statutory determination deadline, and it would be risk major investment so there is international precedents for it, the Canadian Government has also faced delays in infrastructure fragmented approval system, environmental litigation in federal conflicts and recently the Canadian Government has recently the Canadian Government has reduced a law that has the very same principles as the amendment and it allows them to designate nationbuilding projects as they call via orders in the council.

Let me just refer to my other three in movement, Amendment 47 requires preplanning appeals to be considered at an actual hearing. But, in my view, is a streamlining process. Then on 48 and 49 Iran judicial views, I really welcome" which would restrict the judicial review appeals, where the High Court has certified the application to apply for a review is totally without merit and clearly, my Lords, I would pay tribute to the Noble Lord for his work in his review, this clause follows that view.

We have received a very helpful letter from my Noble Friend the Minister this morning which gives details about how Government are going to follow-up and that is very welcome indeed. I think I just want to probe whether we can go further, so an amendment 48, this is in relation to the views of NPS almost every five years which I warmly welcome and I take my noble friend's point about the issue which has not been subject to review.

Which is considered to be out of date. And I just want to make sure that judicial reviews are not used in a way that unreasonably might block progress, so my amendments would move the possibility of GR into circumstances. In between the five yearly reviews by repeating section 13 of the act and in relation to any revisions of NPSs that are solely none material or which are reflected changes, in other words, reflected public policy change legislation or court judgements which the bill is providing for.

Let me say on judicial review I am a strong believer in the judicial review process. My background mainly in the health service and the fact is that NHS bodies are sometimes fast and loose with legislation and guidance, particularly when it comes to outsourcing of services, change of use, there is no doubt that the judicial review process has actually been necessary in order to ensure proper transparency. My problem with judicial review is when it is used essentially as a way to try to block progress, hence the amendment.

And so, my Lords, Amendment 49 would bring legal consistency in the planning act, so it is the High Court that applications for GR to be made, this is not a substantive change but making sure that not in any future event that civil procedurals cannot made to those planning appeals, any court that on the High Court. There is already precedent in section 63 of the listed buildings act which makes clear that appeals are to be made to the High Court and I think it could come across the planning act and I hesitate to talk about the judicial review when the Noble Lord is present, but I do think it would at least be good to have some debate as to whether, in light of his review, it would move.

I beg to move. Wye amendment proposed clause 12, 918, aged 10, leave out subsection 2.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would speak to amendment 52 which is one of prime amendment 52 which is one of prime importance. Our planning has becomes verdict and according to the Explanatory Notes the Planning and Explanatory Notes the Planning and Infrastructure Bill the time that it takes, on average, to secure it DCO takes, on average, to secure it DCO of the relevant consult order for major instructor projects has more than doubled in the last decade to than doubled in the last decade to more than four years.

The Department was beset by objections and please was beset by objections and please and by judicial reviews and several judicial review sometimes besetting judicial review sometimes besetting the project and this may be the cause of an otherwise viable account or unaffordable and nowadays they're or unaffordable and nowadays they're often envisaged as a means of defeating a project, on the conjunction of protesters which has conjunction of protesters which has given rise to a veritable industry as a modern and unprecedented as a modern and unprecedented phenomenon.

Recently, I had good cause to develop such develop cause to develop such develop movement, I made a trip by car from movement, I made a trip by car from London to Devon and I had intended to travel on the M4 highway which is a major arterial route, however in consequence of its blockage I was devoted on the advice of the Google satnav system onto the A3 03. In doing so, I remembered that 303 is the calibre of a rifle bullet and I had hoped to travel a maximum legal speed if not the speed of a bullet.

And I was pleased to be able to do so until I was brought to a halt and then I was constrained to travel at a snails pace for a prolonged period while passing the monument on a single lane road and I saw this established on the Hill which was surrounded by a gathering of Druids. I was reminded of their campaign which has prevented the building of the Stonehenge bypass and they regret the presence of the road, they resist the building of a bypass that would encroach upon Salisbury plain, and some might regard the campaign as a worthy attempt to preserve the dignity of an ancient monument, but there is another side to the story.

Which is that those in neighbouring villages and the division of traffic onto the street, an equal claim to preservation. The legal wrangling has been determined, the first global consent for a bypass that was in 2020 was caught by the High Court in July in July 2021. They were given the green light again by the transport order two years later in July 2023. This was brought online again because of another series of judicial reviews which were dismissed by the High Court in February of judicial reviews which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024, and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024, but undeterred by these two defeats the claimant asked the Supreme Court if they could appeal to them, but on 29 January this year, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the grounds that the challenge did not raise an arguable point of law.

However, this decision was immaterial, since within weeks of taking office that Labour Government had scrapped plans for a 2 mile tunnel to pass that monument on the grounds of the cost of the project which had become unaffordable because of the decision to cancel the project was taken some 3 1/2 years after the development consensus order had been issued and after a full and detailed examination of all the issues. And, in this case, it might be something that campaigners require, not by virtue of the strength of their virtue of the strength of their However the same recourses available to other parties who for various reasons wish to stand in the way of important element project.

Two things are clear in the case of the A3 O3, the first is an additional and viable route to the West Country is urgently required. The second is that Britain's system of arterial roll roads which date from the 1960s would never have been built in modern circumstances have prevailed. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill seeks to remove some of the impediments that afflict the planning system for national significant infrastructure projects, however judgement of the supporters of this amendment number 52 is that the provisions of the bill don't go far enough.

Unless further measures are enacted objectives of the bill are liable to be frustrated at every turn. Amendment 52 endeavours to give the developing consent orders the concerned national significant infrastructure projects the fourth of acts of Parliament. It is intended that after due consultation and consideration, and if enacted by Parliament they should become essentially incontestable. The amendment is accompanied by an extended schedule, schedule IIIa which declares the system of Parliamentary consultation with acting practice was that allows for a process of consultation petitioning against the mill which would preserve the rights of the affected parties.

However, once this process has been undergone and once the DCO have been confirmed by an act of Parliament the possibilities of wilful obstruction would be minimised. Neither the act or the DCO could be questioned in any court or tribunal. Nevertheless, if circumstances change such as requiring a modification of the DCO then the amendment takes full allowance for this in accordance with schedule six of the planning act of 2008. So I earnestly hope the government will pay some attention to this amendment and will perhaps adopt it in some form or other.
18:18
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
Arise to speak to this amendment, my noble friend has spent a lot of time complaining about the A3 O3. There is a very simple solution, to go by train of course. Probably not part that this --... He is right that the process does take a very long time and I spent many years trying to do it in relation to building the Channel Tunnel a long time ago now. We still had to go through the hybrid Bill process which took quite a long time.

My French opposite number kept on telling me, why the hell are you taking so long to get permission? I said well we got to go through Parliament, we got to have several debates and have Select Committees, things like this I said to him how would you do it so quickly in France? He was taking six weeks and we were taking three years, he said well is quite simple, it's a bit like Canada. If you want it to go quickly you don't consult the frogs if you are draining the pond.

Which sums it up really. My worry about these amendments is that I think the hybrid Bill process needs reviewing, but I think there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that whatever else goes in its place, including my noble friend's excellent amendments, actually achieves what it is trying to do, which is to balance the needs of not just the government, not just industry but also the public that it serves.

I think we need much more information about how that would work before we can probably form a view because one of the things which hasn't been mentioned very much in this debate so far is the question of the business case and viability. It's fine buzzing your head with all these things, Sizewell B, or was it Sizewell C, because government has said it's a good idea. They actually haven't said they going to fund it, and the same reply to HS2 that's gone further and only got into a bigger mess.

I do think they need to be a proper business case produced any of these projects alongside your planning regime so that we can all see whether it is likely that these projects will actually go ahead whether they are going to fall flat on their face which would be the worst of all worlds. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister says when she comes to winding up, maybe there is something in these amendments which is worth looking at, but still we have to accept there are many people in this country don't like change and they want to do Jr's or some other way of opposing what is planned.

We have to respect them as well. I look forward to her comments when she comes back to respond.
18:22
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
Will probably already be apparent that in many respects Lord Hunt and I are in agreement about how the bill can be made more effective. On this particular group of points we are not yet quite aligned. Have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind particular amendments 52 and 65, and immense respect for those behind its drafting. I wanted to go further myself when I was undertaking the view of legal challenges, I think it's important by explain why I felt I couldn't whilst I still need some convincing that it would be possible to go further or sensible to go further.

When I did the review I concluded that, while the evidence demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of judicial reviews of NSIPs failed. And it follows from that that the problem is not with the law and it's not about activist judges, the term often used by some people of our judges, not about that. It's about the time it takes for the bad Jr's to meet their doom. That is the problem. To my mind therefore the remedy for that problem is to shorten the judicial review process as much as possible, that's what my recommendations focused on, that is what clause 12 in conjunction with the CPR changes which, I still haven't seen them but I'm told they give effect to the recommendations.

That is what the changes will do. To my mind therefore removing judicial review altogether certainly as things currently stand wouldn't achieve much more than a truncated JR process. For the really big stuff, that he throws, the HS2's of this world, the system already allows for the JR process to be fast tracked. The HS2 and Heathrow cases both of which I was involved in went from ground zero to the Supreme Court far far quicker than a normal case, not much more than a year.

In the HS2 case in particular. The question then is really what are the downsides of going further. Does the relatively marginal benefit outweigh those downsides. In my view the answer is no. The reason for that is to my mind and ouster, whether done expressly through an ouster because -- clause which hardly ever works, or done in a more intelligent faction -- fashion as Lord Hunt's amendment does essentially asking Parliament to endorse DCO and thus giving it the benefit of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

To my mind the difficulty with that is that most DCOs involve Compulsory Purchase Act of land and acquisition of individual rights. To my mind there is a real danger that if this approach were to be undertaken there will come a point where something has gone wrong, the CPO context, and whether it's because somebody was denied a hearing because there was a mistake, whether it's because somebody in the decision-making process inadvertently had an interest, something's gone wrong and the person whose land, maybe their home is to be acquired or some other fundamental interference of their rights, they are denied any possibility of correcting an obvious legal error.

And I think there is a real danger in that scenario that the untested working assumption, for it is only that down on the tablets of stone saying the Supreme Court can't quash legislation, that test of working assumption will be tested and we won't get the right answer. Pandora's box will be open, the Supreme Court would quash the legislation in question and once opened you will never be able to put it back in the box because the lessons of the Supreme Court tell us that, they wouldn't stop there.

This building would no longer be the most important building in Parliament Square it will be over there in the Supreme Court. That would clearly be a fundamental constitutional change and most people certainly would say that is unwelcome to our democracy. To my mind there is that very real risk. I also have a degree of discomfort about what is most fundamentally an executive process being essentially laundered by Parliament and most of it being a legislative process from start to finish as the HS2 hybrid Bill process as crossrail was stop I don't want to rain on the noble Lords parade and the parade of those behind this because as I said I do see a lot of merit in trying to go further, but once you realise that the adverse effects of JR in terms of delay can be cut down very substantially, the question is does going further risk the constitutional crisis that it may very well facilitate, bearing in mind the very severe consequences and implications of that.

On Amendment 47 I should also explain the reason why I recommended that the single shot totally without merit cases get is all hearing as opposed to men and 47 those with something that interferes with people's property rights can take away someone's home. To my mind any measure of fundamental rights individuals in question ought to have the right to at least one hearing even if it's a 30 minute permission hearing, JR permission hearing, totally without merit case and that's that, that is to my mind there ought to be at least one day in court otherwise to my mind the fundamental constitutional principles could be undermined and the Miss E of the process, we have to bear in mind we need to sharpen up planning infrastructure, of that there is no doubt, we need to do it if at all possible, if humanly possible in a way that carries people with us as opposed to alienating people.

That's the way to make the system work. I say I'm yet to be convinced, I'm willing to be convinced, it's not me you need to convince, it's the Minister with her colleagues. I have a degree of nervousness around these amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the reasons are given. I don't have an extensive
18:29
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't have an extensive introduction provided by the noble Lord, but I did want to pick up on a Lord, but I did want to pick up on a few things relating to the nuclear industry full stop Lord Hunt mentioned the eight years from applications consent for Sizewell C. The government has big ambitions for the nuclear rollout, in fact tomorrow I'm sharing a board meeting of Midlands nuclear, one of the things we are doing in that organisation is a partnership organisation across the Midlands region for nuclear, we are looking at where can we cite nuclear power stations within the Midlands.

If it's more modular me -- reactors, advanced reactors or incoherence with the government's plans through EN seven the new national policy statement foreign more flexible approach for nuclear. There are these big ambitions for nuclear and for the industry, but clearly with the experience we have had with Hinckley, with Sizewell, with other large infrastructure, we do have to be radical. We have to think of new ideas that are going to help speed infrastructure through the system. That's why I think the government should really take these suggestions from the noble Lord Lord Hunt very seriously.

Noting that a lot of the principles in amendments 50 -- 52, the noble Lord mentioned the tried and tested process within that amendment 65, the similar lobbying brought about in Canada. I think the government should take these amendments very seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise, I guess I was astonished
18:30
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise, I guess I was astonished when I saw 52. Let me start briefly when I saw 52. Let me start briefly with Amendment 47. As my noble friend Lord Banner has pointed out this is actually just about being fair. It's about being fair to people. And to not allow in effect people to have hearings when as is or even mentioned the livelihoods, whatever it is being ripped away do not have the chance to have an opportunity to speak would be Limbs of Amendment 48, I cannot quite recall in the most recent statement we have done, but in the past, certainly nuclear sites were needed were nuclear powers stations could replaced and as a consequence almost pre-determining that a nuclear power station would be there and I think as a consequence by not allowing a challenge on how the Government has come to that conclusion, I appreciate how they have come to scrutiny, but again they would be unfair to those communities because of then signals that within 20 years time you definitely will have a nuclear power station cited, they were named back station cited, they were named back in 2011.

39 that will be reasonable and to get back into I think the Viscount seems to be in support of this and I used to live outside of Andover, so I know very well the A3 03 to which he refers and the issues about Stonehenge and in the division roots National Highways is obliged to cover division roots which have the road status which often leads to very ridiculous divisions, but appreciated by villagers in these main rates.

I have been extolling the importance of the scrutiny but this takes it too far. I think in particular trying to remember which particular trying to remember which bit of the schedule but in the Joint committees which it does not even go to the other House for consideration, and that was in for three points each in relation to rescheduled Noble Lord is preparing. There see it in the House of Lords, I may be in agreement.

But we do know that the Government can run through anything. In the Commons. So, let's cut to the chase of what is going on here. And the DCO was tabled in May 2020 of the approval given in July 22, so I am aware of the pre-consultation and not all of that was due to necessarily consultation problems, it was more to do with quite a lot of changes in aspects of policy, coalition Government, all these other things played a factor as well as adjusting the financing and EDF have pretty much pulled out of that.

So, I think that has added to the complication that we are talking about, but I have to say that there are a number of groups I could now name again together that just kept filing JR after JR after JR, it really was ridiculous, but there is a point to be said here. Ultimately, it is judges who decide if a process goes, they are the ones who decide if it has merit. I do not know if there was some law that needs to be done in discussion to the judiciary, but what threshold they desire if something has merit, and I have seen judgements on a variety of project with the Government or the decision-maker is technically found decision-maker is technically found to be at fault, but the remedy is just it should go ahead anyway, even if there has been a technical issue, so, for what it is worth, I am generally supportive of my Noble Friends proposals.

I have to say, close 52, if it is ever put to a division, I am afraid I would be difficult to the former minister but the Noble Lord Hunt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise very briefly, just feeling that this discussion
18:36
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
just feeling that this discussion for this potentially extraordinary far-reaching group of amendments, has a perspective from those who I often work with, those who are environmental groups, human rights groups, groups who are representing disadvantaged communities or reading judicial reviews and I have to say the perspective that I approach this from is how incredibly expensive and difficult they are and how often they fail, even according to measures of commonsense when they should have succeeded. That is very much where it comes from.

You do not have to just listen to me on this, I think that we saw particularly after the judicial review over the parliament we saw a great deal of debate about the traditional review and if we go to Lord Reid the president of the Supreme Court in March 2020, I quote, judges are very well aware of the risks and challenges and they are repelling them and carefully talking the constraint into what are generally political matters. This is a matter to be considered should not start from the premise that judges are here to pronounce legal issues, the true condition is actually quite the opposite.

I think that we have a system of judicial review that works to defend the powerless, that includes nature as well as people in our society. There is a final backstop, and sometimes it works, sometimes it protects people, it is crucial that we maintain it. I have to commend the Noble Lord for ingenuity, this is possibly the amendment for the biggest consequences I have seen from single amendment as I think the Noble Lord banner set out for us with more expertise than I can offer and I would also say to the Noble Lord banner that if we are thinking about trying to speed up the judicial review, and in principle that is not something I have any problem with, one of the things that definitely slows down is the inequality that those who are small equality groups than those that are facing an inequality of arms they just do not have the resources before you can keep going.

Dealing with that inequality of arms issue would actually be good for the official decision-making in our society. Nonetheless, I think it is fairly self-evident that I would say I am strongly opposed this being taken in this group of amendments.
18:38
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, the Noble Lord Hunt has brought before us his own bill. It is worthy on its own to stand a significant discussion, how different procedures could deal with And I am not in a position to know if they would work or not. In an attempt to provide an alternative that the noble Baroness the Minister in her reply will be able to explain why, so I always start from this starting point which is first of all we are a small island, so China comparing us with Canada in its vast expanse or even with France which is significantly geographically larger than the United Kingdom with a than the United Kingdom with a similar population.

Makes for poor comparisons. So, that is the first of the challenges that anyone in this country has with large-scale industry. And the second one is this, that large-scale infrastructure plan projects that have been mentioned here chest to end the A3 O3. Neither of them made the case to people about the benefits to them. HS2 was never about shaving off 10 minutes of a journey between London and Birmingham or 20 minutes if you never get to Leeds but it was never about that, it was about congestion on the railways.

That case was never made. So, what a surprise, when the public do not respond to the project in that way. Why are we going through the destruction of our villages, yes, favoured landscapes, for the sake of 20 minutes? That was the argument. You have to make the case, and the case has not been made. The same 4303. From major projects. That seems to be the major difficulty. Secondly, I just am going to take issue with the Noble Lord Remnant still, I think he is radical, I always say radical is always used for developers when they want something.

And we might want the outcome but we do not like what it is going to do to our environments, so I think that we have to try harder. And with the noble Viscount his planning is sclerotic and actually this element of infrastructure planning is very difficult and let's not label the whole of the planning process, the local planning authorities do not hold their development the statistics demonstrate that and with the planning, that is why the Noble Lord Hunt has put forward his alternative a procedure for it whether or not that will work I leave us with more of a detailed backing from the civil service to decide.

But the issue is always with planning applications or small that they do not involve the public, but it was due and you set yourself up it was due and you set yourself up And again, if you resorted to legal processes to resolve applications that should be decided between elected people and the community, you are never going to get an you are never going to get an answer. So, I look forward to the reply. And the judgement on this one.
18:44
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords I rise, hopefully, to speak briefly on this group of amendments tabled by the Noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the amendments in this group of related appeals the traditional process has involved in national policy statements. As many lots have said, the current system for national, critical infrastructure does not work. We need to get a move on and we also need to protect the environmental nature. I quite liked Viscount Hanworth's comments and that a Stone Age man could build quicker than they could build a bypass around it, this does not make sense, it is no secret that the court secret is facing a severe backlog.

During facing a severe backlog. During And the decision bodies that plug up the Colts, causing significant delays to the planning process if we are to have an effective program of infrastructure development in the housebuilder then we must ensure not only the fixations legal delays are kept within but also that the threat of these that we have already heard causes delays and lorryloads of paperwork. Amendment 52 does seem to present a paradox. On the one hand, the Noble Lord hunt is understandably seeking to speed up the planning process in Amendment the planning process in Amendment Which we believe is a somewhat reasonable proposal that we do have concerns of the risk of the Secretary of State having even greater Henry VIII powers in Amendment 52 the noble Lord is proposing each order determining an application to be a critical priority must be presented to Parliament in a full public bill.

Paragraph 3 of the new schedule in this amendment then details a petitioning process, a counter petition process and reporting process. The other parts of this very long amendment provide a highly detailed process of how that bill would progress through joint committee then complete the passage and I share the noble Baroness Kinnock's views that in the Lords it might receive better scrutiny. We completely agree with parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. And of a different, and of different infrastructure developments, however we do not think that presenting a bill to Parliament with all the procedures associated would be a proportionate proposal.

And as my noble friend has raised, one also needs to consider the role of the judicial system and whether and how these proposals could be challenged and their impact. I must also say that I cannot support the noble Lords amendment 65. This amendment proposes to establish a critical element task force. Since coming into office this government has established a vast array of new public bodies, quangos, reviews, action plans, strategies and task forces. None of them have delivered meaningful results. Rather than simply offload crucial decisions that should be undertaken by ministers, two other bodies, the Secretary of State does not need to establish yet another task.

Advise. Such a scenario would only lead to more deliberation and delay. When this bill is intended to speed up the planning process. I don't think this amendment is therefore necessary nor appropriate.
18:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I think has been a very interesting debate and a very critical issue and aspect of the bill. Lord Hunt I think deserves a lot of credit for some really interesting thinking about how we might unblock some of the really serious issues that have been holding up the planning system. I also thank all noble Lord to have spoken in this section of the debate, Viscount Hanworth, Lord Berkeley, Baroness Bennett, Lord Banner who I us to thank for his work in this area as well, Lord Ravensdale, Baroness Coffey, Lord Jamieson and Baroness Pinnock.

Viscount Hanworth spoke about the sclerotic planning system, we all know it is sclerotic, Baroness Pinnock argues that's not local government, I have a lot of sympathy with what she says having spent a lot of time with local government. There is no doubt the system is blocked up. There are many reasons for that and I think I set out in my earlier, one of my earlier speeches that this, that's why we require whole package of measures to unblock the system and we require some new thinking as well, that's one very grateful to Lord Hunt.

These amendments seek to amend the various routes of appeal and rights to judicial review for both NSIPs, national policy statements, and a new designation of development call critical national in. Turning first to amendment 47 which seeks to remove the requirement for the determination of permission in judicial review cases concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects to be made at an oral hearing, at present individuals and organisations seeking to challenge these projects have up to three attempts to gain permission from the court.

A paper stage, an option to renew an oral hearing and its unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal. Each attempt can extend the duration of the claim by several weeks, I think that is the positive thing that Baroness Pinnock was talking about earlier, but in some cases by several months. That's why we are making provision in clause 12 of the bill to streamline this process. As noted by Lord Banner and many stakeholders he responded to the call for evidence on this matter, the paper permission stage is not efficient with regards to challenges relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The majority of claims are reviewed permission at the paper stage, of these most went on to renew their case at oral hearing. Removing the paper stage would allow any disputed question of permission to go straight to an oral hearing. This will help that might reduce the overall time it takes reclaim to reach a final decision, limiting. Of uncertainty for developers and the local communities. The provision doesn't mean for future applications will require permission hearing as cases can still proceed directly to a substantive hearing if the question of granting permission is not disputed by the parties.

The other provision in clause 12 will In an oral hearing the High Court deems the case totally without merit. I presume that as a legal phrase because got capital nesters -- capital letters in my notes of the pit will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. These changes are necessary to vent merit list claims from holding up objects by exhausting the appeals process and will ensure legitimate challenges ahead more quickly. Amendment 48 six to amend the planning act 2008 to make certain decisions relating to national policy statements exempt from legal challenge.

By seeking to remove the right to apply for a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to carry out a review of the relevant national policy statement, the first part of this amendment would undermine the requirement introduced in clause 1. Regarding the second part of this amendment I recognise my noble friend intention to facilitate routine changes to national policy statements by making immaterial changes exempt from legal challenge. However the public's ability to challenge the lawfulness of government decisions is fundamental to the rule of law.

It is for the court to determine whether a decision has been taken lawfully. It is for the court to decide whether a legal challenge to be considered and there is already a mechanism for the court to deal with challenges concerning matters which are not likely to have a material impact. Section 31 of the Senior Courts act 1981 requires the High Court to refuse permission for judicial review if it considers highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.

I turn to amendment 49 which seeks to clarify that legal challenges relating to Development Consent Orders made under section 118 of the planning act 2008 must be brought to the High Court. Section 118 stipulates that proceedings must By judicial review. Details of the process is set out in part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and in the relevant practice directions. Further guidance can be found in the ministries of courts judicial review guide. This made clear in the relevant rules practice directions and guidance documents that applications for judicial review are to be made to the High Court.

I trust this reassures my noble friend there is sufficient clarity about the process and that legislative change is not required in this regard. I turn now to amendment 52 and 65 which I will consider together. I thank my noble friend for his amendment and as he knows I agree entirely with the intent behind them. As noble Lords will have had throughout this debate this is one of the government central objectives to speed up the consenting process for all major infrastructure projects.

The reforms we are making to the NSIPs regime through this bill will help us go further in speeding up the consenting process for all the infrastructure this country needs. As we have already debated the current pre-application process is producing counter-productive outcomes and extending the pre- application timeframes. That is why we are removing the statutory pre- application consultation requirements, we will issue guidance through this bill to assist applicants setting out what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take in relation to a proposed application in readiness for submitting an actual application.

Doing so will give applicants flexibility in how they consult and engage key bodies, local authorities and individuals about their proposed development leading to more meaningful and effective reapplication engagement and shorter pre-application timeframes. Through the bill we are also enabling the Secretary of State to direct certain development out of the NSIPs regime where such development could be considered by an alternative regime which may be more appropriate. This has the potential to expedite the consenting process and deliver infrastructure more quickly. I appreciate my noble friend is motivated by a desire to ensure that highly critical and urgent infrastructure projects can progress more quickly, we all want to deliver these schemes as quickly as possible.

We need to make sure we can do so without unnecessary disruption and with sufficient certainty both applicants and decision-makers. What we need to weigh up is whether the radical overhaul he proposes is the best way forward given the changes we are already making as he knows, critical priority status can and is already Delivering essential infrastructure. Projects with the status a given priority in the planning process and the CMP policy impacts upon how certain residual impacts are We are starting to see the positive impacts of CMP status on recent NSIPs projects, for example through the energy national policy statements, CMP status is applied to renewable and low carbon energy projects.

With the mandating of regular NPS updates and it will be easier than ever before to consider whether more different projects should benefit from this status. My noble friend offers two ways in which critical status could be applied. I will speak about both in turn. Firstly he suggests introducing a specialist task force to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. This is essentially the role the independent examining authority fulfils under the NSIPs regime, under the planning act 2008 a panel of experts has appointed to examine each and sit application and make recommendations to the Secretary of State and whether project should be given whether project should be given consent or not.

As setting up the specialist task fourth will likely draw from the same pool of planning and infrastructure experts such a proposal risks disruption to the NSIPs regime and slowing down the consenting of infrastructure. Also contained in this amendment my noble friend suggests granting deemed This is an interesting proposal but it does face a number of challenges. Firstly deemed consent cannot be used to consent development which is required to be assessed under the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations regimes. Most major infrastructure projects are EIA development and must undergo a full EIA process including the submission of an environmental statement and assessment by the relevant authorities.

Secondly further questions would arise in terms of the government's compliance with international law, notably the arthouse convention. This requires signatories to concerns about the impact of a project to be incorporated into the decision- making process, this is what the planning act 2008 already enables through the examination stage and consideration of relevant representations. Failure to account that this is likely to increase the risk of legal challenge and make planning decisions more vulnerable planning decisions more vulnerable To my noble friend amendment which introduces the power for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development critical priority.

Once designated these projects would follow the normal process for DCO but then be subject to additional parliamentary approval. A public bill would be Given Given it Given it affects Given it affects private Given it affects private interests, would then engage the petitioning process will stop once petitions are resolved it would be fast tracked through both houses to Royal Assent, the objective of this process would be to protect the DCO from judicial reviews. This is without doubt interesting and thought-provoking, as we have already debated today the government is using the spell to tackle meritless legal challenges which delay projects and increase costs, we've also demonstrated we are willing to go further if necessary to speed up the planning system and get Britain building.

The amendment touches on complex issues relating to the role of the courts vs Parliament as Lord Banner has indicated. In managing conflicts indicated. In managing conflicts And it interests on large-scale infrastructure projects it has enabled us to debate novel solutions to the challenges we face in building the infrastructure we need. The measures already make targeted interventions to consenting system to ensure greater certainty to investors and applicants which will speed up delivery of national priorities including those of critical urgency. Those reasons and because of the discussions we have had already I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Turning to the amendment which seeks to repeal section 150 of the planning repeal section 150 of the planning act 2008 with the aim of reducing post content delays to construction, I thank my noble friend for raising this matter and it is indeed something the government has been considering stop when applicants submit their DCO for nationally significant infrastructure projects section 150 enables them to include other prescribed necessaries consensus as well the intent behind this section was to ensure the NSIPs this section was to ensure the NSIPs With applicant securing all the permissions they need to build by a single process.

This could save precious time and avoid them having to seek consent separately after they have secured develop in consent. However section 150 as drafted says that the sun can prescribe consent this can only be done with the permission of the relevant regulatory body and the relevant regulatory body and the ... Recognise that section 150 is definitely not working as intended. And that there are significant delays to securing permits once a DCO is granted. Therefore, while we agree strongly with the intent behind this amendment, we do not agree this is the best way of delivering on that.

Only 16% of people who responded to our working paper voiced support of repealing section 150. Providing the relevant consenting body with the ability to veto section request is an important safeguard. It is vital to ensure that permitting decisions are only made when a sufficient amount of information is available, that is often not the case when a DCO application is submitted, which could result in the relevant Secretary of State delaying a decision on the DCO or introducing conditions be fulfilled at a later date.

Or environmental permits, there is additional risk of regression on environmental standards and putting local communities at risk. Instead we believe it is better to speed up consenting and construction through DEFRA's proposed reforms on permitting requirements, environment agency improvement and providing clearer guidance on section 150. DEFRA's proposed reforms will empower regulators to make risk- based decisions on which activities can be exempt from leading environmental permit altogether. These permitting requirements are low risk activities will help speed up consenting and construction by lessening the consenting burden on developers.

Operational and service improvements will also improve the consenting process for both applicants and the aberrant agency. These reforms will deliver for growth and ensure we can build critical instruction without delay. Mike Environment Agency. While we agree with the sentiment, I hope noble Lords will feel assured taking action to tackle the issue head on and for those reasons I would kindly ask the noble Lord to be... To

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendments. Thank you very much. I'm sure the whole house would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure the whole house would wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for her very comprehensive
19:03
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
Minister for her very comprehensive response, which I think has been replicated throughout today's proceedings. I'm very grateful to her for the intention she has paid. I cannot say this set of amendments have enjoyed uniform support amongst your Lordships. But I hope they promote a debate. I do welcome the Bill, I think it is deftly going in the right direction, but I think there are still some concerns that I have and that the number of colleagues, about whether it is really going to cut the cake in the end.

-- Definitely going. Hence looking at the issues about judicial review and I pay thanks to Lord Banner for the comments he made, and I take note of what he said about compulsory purchase and property rights in particular. I think time is... We need to come to an end. I think we need to consider this very carefully. I still think we need to look whether there are some super charging approaches we can take to the really important infrastructure developments we need, with the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny and logistically.

Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave with John. Amendment 48. -- By leave withdrawn. 49, not moved. The question is 49, not moved. The question is clause 12 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I beg to move that the House be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the I beg to move that the House I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
10:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Bishop of Chester
-

19:11
10:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Bishop of Chester
-

19:11
10:31
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page