Lords Chamber

Thursday 24th July 2025

(began 1 day, 8 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:08
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Barrow
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well Sir Timothy Earle Barrow, Officer of our most excellent order of the British Empire.

To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and Barron Barron Barrow Barron Barrow of Barron Barrow of Penrith. Barron Barrow of Penrith. And Barron Barrow of Penrith. And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of the Lord Barrow, to have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presence granting for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom amongst the Barons.

And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 18th day of July in the third year of our reign. By warrant under the King's sign-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

manual. I, Timothy Earle Barrow, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to heirs and successors, according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I should My Lords, I should like My Lords, I should like to My Lords, I should like to notify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of retirements effective from today of Lord Brooke and Lord from today of Lord Brooke and Lord Boswell, under section 1 of the House Of Lords Reform Act and I should like to thank them for their
11:14
None Portrait Business of the House
-

should like to thank them for their most valiant service to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most valiant service to the House. My Lords, I wish to notify the House that I received the following House that I received the following letter from the clerk of Parliament and the Bruce, "I want to take the opportunity to confirm what we have discussed. The Clerk of Parliament was for a 5-year term which comes to an end in April, 2026. At that an end in April, 2026. At that point, I will retire. I want to take this opportunity now to say what a this opportunity now to say what a great privilege it has been to hold the office of Clerk of Parliament the office of Clerk of Parliament and I'm honoured to be the 65th person to do so.

My time has seen many extraordinary events. I took my oath of allegiance to the lid Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh passed away soon after. I was the first Clerk of Parliament for many decades to see a change in the sovereign I serve and see the demise of a monarch and a clinician. The House has undergone many other changes but the professionalism of my colleagues has been a feature. It's been a great leverage to be part of such a wonderful team and I thank you all.

-- Great privilege. This stretches right back over what will be 38 years of service in the House when my term as Clerk of Parliament ends. Throughout my term, I have remained committed to our values, to deliver a healthy workplace culture and responsible management of public money. I would be grateful if you could convey my deep appreciation to members across the House for the generous help and advice throughout my time. The future holds many challenges for the House and my colleagues, not least the continuing need to focus on maintaining and renewing the Palace of Westminster to keep everyone safe and provide a legacy for future generations.

I'm confident the House will support the House and members will rise to meet the challenges. I wish you, my colleagues, and my successor all the best for the user had." That is the end of the letter. I am consulting the leaders of parties across the benches and the Speaker to ensure it is done in good time and, as is customary, I will put a motion before the House before his retirement that will allow members to pay appropriate tribute to the distinguished service of
11:17
None Portrait Oral questions: The potential of minimally invasive cancer therapies, such as focused ultrasound to treat less survivable cancers and the national cancer plan
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question.
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Progress in introducing the proposed ‘Hillsborough Law’
-

the models that were well and to evaluate them and make sure we are building on best practice.
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Before we move on to the main business, I want to stop with some words of thanks to staff across the House and colleagues ahead of the summer recess. I'm delighted to be able to confirm to the House that the current plan for the start of the current plan for the start of the summer recess next year, we will rise with the conclusion of business on Thursday, 23 July 2026. Everyone can now rush off to book their holidays with family and friends.

This summer, it has out like a very long-term, since July 2024 we have sat for 180 days, 25 bills have received Royal assent with a further eight government bills committee before the House. Beyond bills, we have had 619 Oral Questions, 150 statements, 86 general debates, including 23 debates on Select Committee reports. And as to yesterday, 170 divisions. That would not be possible without the hard work of the House staff. It will be impossible to cover everyone, but my usual channel colleagues and my self have tried to coordinate and cover as many teams as possible.

I start with thanks to some specific teams. Firstly the Public Bill Office who have handled record levels of From Easter until 30 June, we have gone through 1500 amendments. In terms of the complexity of legislation. Secondly, we have shown great patience and dedication and the guidance has been critical to all sides of the House. Also, I want to pay particular tribute to the deputy speakers, who have ably assisted the Lords Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

Their work often goes unnoticed and I think we should find a way to recognise the special contribution that they make to the House. Security officers and police deal with difficult circumstances quietly every day to keep us safe as we carry out our work. I extend this to attendance to provide critical support for members. I thank my colleagues across the House for support particularly on the Labour support particularly on the Labour benches and government quips. -- whips.

I also thank those who quietly run the processes we rely on including the list. Since Christmas alone, they have overseen the early 90 Speaker's list. You Hansard, 90 Speaker's list. You Hansard, thank you for the dedication in producing the important record of debates. Your work ensures we are transparent and accessible to the public. I pay particular tribute to Nick Lester, who is leaving this place shortly as the chief Lodge Porto. His work has shown a much- needed light on the House.

-- shone. I want to extend my personal thanks to my predecessor, especially as I never get my new role as Captain of Arms. Also, the many statuses which have been dealt with professionally and they will no doubt continue this in the same way. Finally, a special in the same way. Finally, a special thank you to my opposite members. We may not always agree but be get through things with good humour, laughter, and friendship. I'm grateful.

I have huge respect for the noble lady, and the noble Lord. Thank you so much. My door remains open for all colleagues across the House to discuss issues or areas to discuss. I hope everyone has a restful summer, recess, and return on September 1 for further consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Before that, I hope everyone has a restful and enjoyable summer with family and friends. friends.
12:04
Baroness Williams of Trafford Portrait Baroness Williams of Trafford (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as the government chief whip read out the various statistics of how long we have sat, for how many days, questions, divisions, the House must have felt if you one of those statistics. It has been a very long stint in the I would like to take this opportunity before we head off to recess to thank all of those who have worked as part of the administration for their efforts in enabling this place to function. The work done by staff, the kitchen departments, the committee office, library, across the teams, it's not recognised enough and I know noble Lord across the House join me in paying tribute to them and the work that they do in supporting all noble Lord everyday, often for late nights, too.

It is important to remember that the building is at least 435 years old and some parts are older than others. In offices which spanned Westminster. The team that keeps it going and the office is clean and the facilities that we use in working order are greatly appreciated by the noble Lord across the House. The same can be said of the catering teams and we must not forget that they stay with us during late sittings, dividing us with food and good cheer throughout the day and work hard to sustain us and our staff.

I speak on behalf of all noble Lord when I say we appreciate them and they are hard work and we recognise the vital contribution that they make to this place. I thank staff in the committee office and the library for up all they do to allow the House to perform core functions, holding the government to account and scrutinising legislation. The library is fundamentally important in allowing us to do that and we must do this and informed, accurate, effective way.

Last but not least, I extend my thanks to the noble Lord and the government chief whip and the captain of the gentlemen at Arms and his office for the work that they do in managing the business of the House. He knows that I respect him hugely and I am glad that the feeling is mutual and it's been a particularly busy period for us and we have a lot to scrutinise and a lot to discuss. He has a tough task, I know that.

I recognise the work that they do on a daily basis. We don't agree on everything. Sometimes we disagree but never in front of the children. I appreciate the relationship we have built up since the election and beforehand and I look forward to working with him after the recess to make sure we have the option to question what the government is doing and how they are doing it and what they could do better. One thing I did when I was the captain was I provided Lord Kennedy with vast quantities of biscuits and cake to keep him sweet.

That has been deficient in his tenure and I look forward to more of biscuits and cakes. I know that he eats them all but, fundamentally, it's why our members are here today and in this spirit we will seek to engage in the usual channels, as we have done so far. I would like to wish all noble Lord and staff in this house very happy recess.
12:08
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Portrait Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I begin by placing on record our thanks to the doorkeeper is. There are consistent and reliable presence as a key part of the daily function of the House and their professionalism and courtesy ensures proceedings are carried out in an orderly and dignified manner. I wish to acknowledge invaluable work of colleagues in digital services. The technical expertise underpins much ability to work effectively, particularly the demand of hybrid working. This support has been massively important throughout the session and is greatly appreciated by many members and staff, who get support, often on a daily basis.

Thanks are also due to the cleaning staff whose work, though often undertaken outside, is no less vital. They are some of the unsung heroes in Westminster and play a crucial role in maintaining cleanliness and safety at all times and we are hugely grateful for all that they do. I wish to thank the Printed Paper Office because the service as part of the smooth conduct in the House and the commitment to accuracy and efficiency is greatly valued by all who rely on them.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the usual channels and, if I may, P tribute to the service given by the group leader who is standing down today after nine years of service and we welcome and congratulate the new leader. Sometimes in recent weeks as we debated the Employment Rights Bill into the night, long after the House of Commons has gone home, I find it ironic and questionable the conditions we impose on the staff and I hope we can look again at working conditions in the near future.

As others have said, I wish all members and staff in all teams across the House restful and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

restorative summer recess. On behalf of the benches, I echo

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On behalf of the benches, I echo the remarks that have been made so far today. I praise the deputy far today. I praise the deputy speakers who ably guide us through proceedings and, I then noble Lord
12:11
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
proceedings and, I then noble Lord no, they are dependent on the brief of the Lord Speaker which is prepared daily by the Clerk of the Parliament office and they do their best to cover every procedural eventuality that can be thrown at it, for the described shenanigans or it, for the described shenanigans or not. I had to look 'shenanigans' and Google takes you straight to theatre called Shenanigans Theatre and Casey they deliver comedy and variety act.

-- And they say. It's helped us through challenging moments and I thank them and all the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments. It is due to the organisational mastery of the Speaker's Office that the deputy speakers are in the right place at the right time and from embarrassed experience I can say it is not their fault if they are not. Another thing the office is good at is gossip. It is said rumours started in the corridor is already known in the Speaker's Office before one could spring.

This is only a small part of the very busy office and they are always of good cheer and serve the best coffee in the house. The one group of colleagues who is constant and with us on the late shift are the clerks of the table and applicable office and they are loyal and stable band and it was remarked yesterday that one member joined the House as an assistant clerk and 20 years has moved up to be a clerk , clerks of the table office have helped to draft over 10,000 written questions and 600 oral questions at the pace I fear will not let up in September but I thank them all.

Finally, where to capture it all, as the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit it is now easy task and carried out the professionalism across the chamber. Even when species are not quite hitting the mark, somehow the clever operators always managed to capture them. Indeed, the capture the essence and mix of the house well and I thank them. In closing, I add my thanks to my colleagues in the Usual Channels of the many kindnesses extended across the bench which are numerous.

I have learned about Jaffa cakes and I am worried because I could offered them and I'm concerned I'm being buttered up in some way. I do not mind because I love Jaffa Cakes. I wish all the staff in the House and all noble Lord restful and splendid summer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord Privy Seal. I beg to move the motion standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my name on the order paper. The question is the motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion be agreed to. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Not content." The
12:14
None Portrait Statement: Infected Blood Inquiry Additional Report: Government Response
-

contrary, say, "Not content." The Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, House of Commons on Monday, 21 July, Infected Blood Inquiry, additional

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. The government response. I thank the Minister for this opportunity to ask questions on the opportunity to ask questions on the additional report of the Infected Blood Inquiry. I start by thinking Sir Brian Langstaff for continued Sir Brian Langstaff for continued work to get justice for victims. Like him, the official Opposition wants to see fair compensation wants to see fair compensation provided without delay to every person who is eligible and those are the words without delay. I welcome that the Infected Blood Compensation that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority have accepted most recommendations made by the inquiry and we support the decision by the and we support the decision by the government to instigate the review government to instigate the review The government is right to accept the severance of recommendations and engage with the community on those engage with the community on those recommendations they are not yet recommendations they are not yet able to accept.

The critical issue able to accept. The critical issue is time, we know many victims of the infected blood scandal have sadly died before receiving compensation. Ministers and officials must work tirelessly to ensure victims receive tirelessly to ensure victims receive the compensation that they deserve as soon as possible. In the other place, ministers were clear that the top priority is to move quickly. Can the noble Baroness the Minister confirmed that the complexity of changes that will be made to the scheme will not stand in the way of time repayments? Can I also ask the Minister what assessment the government has made of the complexity of the scheme after these changes? And the impact of that changes? And the impact of that complexity on the timeliness of compensation? Under the previous government, the engagement with the infected blood community led to a broad push in compensation.

It was thought by some that keeping the scheme simple would maximise the chances of delivering compensation more quickly. Has this been borne out in engagements with the infected blood community? The government is committed to bringing forward regulations following their acceptance of a number of recommendations. These are to be introduced as soon as possible entry time allows. Can the Minister confirm that these regulations will be made on our return in September and taken through the House by the end of the year? We and the victims have waited long enough.

The victims cannot be expected to wait any longer for that. The government also recommended -- accepted the recommendations of the grievance mechanism. Except the governor's recommendation of this. How will ministers ensure that the grievance mechanism is properly staffed and how will performance be monitored? How will ministers ensure that the grievance mechanism process does not lead to any delays in compensation for the victims? The additional for the victims? The additional report also contained criticisms of the IB CA to maintain trust.

Reports that it involved a gagging clause are worrying. The report found that the numbers who received compensation to date are unsatisfactory. We need to see improvements. I would not want to conclude remarks without raising the experience of victims of unethical research practices, especially those who were pupils at the school, the additional report recommends that payments are made when a victim -- someone was a victim of unethical research practices. And the report recommends whether Minister considers if the compensation should be increased.

We are pleased the government has listened and committed to consult. When will the consultation be concluded? Will she confirm the consultation will not result in any delay in compensation for victims? Questions have also been raised on the timeline of been raised on the timeline of memorials for the young victims of the school. These are heartbreaking cases. It is essential that victims of the infected blood scandal of the infected blood scandal receive compensation as soon as possible. We continue to call for that.

And we will press ministers and officials to address the criticisms urgently, to make criticisms urgently, to make criticisms urgently, to make progress, so we can achieve better for the victims.
12:19
12:21
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
fortnight your lordships House are debating a report from the judge telling the government that the telling the government that the compensation schemes are not working properly and are an affront to the suffering that the victims faced, suffering that the victims faced, the first was the Post Office Horizon scheme a fortnight ago. From the LibDem benches I echo the thanks the LibDem benches I echo the thanks of the Conservative benches to Sir Brian Langstaff for continuing to speak truth to power and hold the government to account.

Today, the government to account. Today, the government is responding to Sir Brian's report, following the session taking really moving evidence from victims and evidence from victims and organisations. He says he reserves the right to reconvene the inquiry the right to reconvene the inquiry at a further date, to reassess if the government have taken on board and change the delivery process to ensure all victims are treated fairly, speedily and with humanity. I am not aware of another judge having done that recently.

Ministers seem not to understand that every seem not to understand that every challenge, or having to prove things again and again during the process again and again during the process consultation process re-victimises those who have suffered already over many years. It should not be necessary. As usual, as I said in the Post Office Horizon statement, that is like the old bank adage on a rejected check, words and figures do not agree. We'll victims and Parliament hear the result of the consultations and the consequent decisions by the government on Sir Brian's recommendation is that they are not accepting in full today? Sir Wyn Williams made an important point at the horizon report that I and others have said repeatedly and in Parliament, when will we have a truly independent body to manage inquiries and compensation schemes? the infected blood compensation authority are not independent, it was staffed by many who were around the table when victims were told there is nothing to be done and nothing to be seen.

It is not just the scheme, it is also the Post Office Horizon, Hillsborough, Manchester bombings, nuclear test victims, and the medical ones that cannot even get to first base, mesh, Sodium valproate, where babies are still being born with deformities. We'll all of these get together to consider Sir Wyn's recommendations? I have a series of questions but I want to thank the government for the recommendations it has already accepted, the HIV start date, the treatment award for those with hepatitis B or hepatitis C, and especially March date for brief partners receiving support until their claim can be started are all vital.

As well as recognising the states of deceased affected victims should now be able to pass on their compensation as infected victims can. In the report, the comments to the report by Sir Brian, the Paymaster General says the timescales are not changing. Sir Brian made it plain that it was unacceptable that the affected victims, not even start to be approved by the end of this year. So can the Minister explain why this timescale is clearly not being speeded up? It makes a mockery of working at pace.

How long will it take for it Kurt to design and introduce a process for registration, as opposed to victims waiting, like the lottery, for a call? Newspapers reported that this time last year, Ithaca consisted of just a couple of staff at computers. What are the headcount now and what plans are there to ramp up stuff to speed up processes? The review is expected to begin in August. When will the ministers report back to Parliament on its results? I do mean Parliament, not just public affairs committee.

There are some recommendations where the government have agreed to look again. Calculation is past care and financial loss where the current process downgrades the commitment of home carers, many of whom have had to give up work for decades to look after the loved one. And also for the compensation scheme for victims of unethical research. Their experience is amongst the most horrific of any scandal this country has seen in the last 50 years. Forgive the cynicism, but looking again gives no assurance that severe wrongs done to the victims will be remedied.

How long will it looking again take? The Liberal Democrats are pleased there is progress in the statement and the report, but Sir Brian, the many victims, and Brian, the many victims, and Parliament, will be watching to see if the government delivers swiftly on its moral obligations to the victims of the infected blood scandal.
12:25
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the contributions. The responses were measured, reasonable, productive and challenging where we need to be challenged. I believe that this debate and the debates we have had so far on this issue is your logic is at its best. Sir Brian's further report set out a constructive way forward for the government and it Kurt to take. The message coming through loud and clear, the government must include the community in how they move forward.

The report says that there is hope some trust can be restored, but must include more than goodwill and warm words and intent to secure it. Those words should be the model of how the government drives work forward, I hope the statement shows we are planning to do just that, taking the actions we are now, and engaging the community to see how we can deliver changes for a scheme that works for all of them. I would like to turn to specific points and questions both noble Baronesses have raised.

If I have missed or am unable to cover all of them, I will reflect on Hansard and respond to anything in writing over the summer. I have a series of bits of paper and also messages coming through. There is one specific point from the noble Baroness that I do not know the answer to but I am waiting for imminently, so we will see. With regards to memorialisation, which is a point raised by Baroness Finn, the Minister for the Cabinet Office appointed Clive Smith as chair of the memorial committee, the government is confident he will progress the work quickly while bringing the community together, given his history, we are pleased has accepted this role.

He has set out his intention to appoint a vice-chair to represent the whole blood transfusion community and we have been appointed in due course. With regards to mechanisms for concern about the scheme, in line with the inquiry's recommendations, will seek to introduce a mechanism which individuals may use to raise concerns for a continuous improvement of the scheme. We are waiting for ICB a to do so, we will respond shortly. It is the end of term and I want to make sure we get this right, so bear with me.

We continue to work tirelessly, I think everyone across your logic task needs everyone to work at pace to deliver for members of the community, but I hate that phrase, but if it has ever been required, it is for these people at this point. With regard to the complexity of changes, I want to reassure all noble Lords that any changes will not stand in the way of timely payments. We are seeking to move as quickly as possible under the current scheme. No one will have to current scheme.

No one will have to apply for additional on top of it, but will give additional funds if need be. No one will have to reapply based on the scheme to bring forward. The noble Baroness asked about timing, both noble ladies spoke about timing, we will bring forward the Statutory Instruments as quickly as possible, they will be completed by the end of the year for phase 3 at this point, the next step of Statutory Instruments will move forward. And additional Statutory Instruments will be brought forward next year, after appropriate consultations have been made with the community to make sure we are getting it right for them.

With regard to the assessment of how we have adopted the scheme, it was recommended earlier by... That was established under the last government. The last government and this government have had to consider bespoke versus tariff scheme. We have adopted a tariff-based scheme to make sure people receive payments as quickly as possible. That was always going to have challenges associated with it in making sure the victims of this horrendous scandal may not feel they were going to get fully recognised by each tariff, but it was the most effective way to get money to people and compensation to those people who and compensation to those people who What we are trying to do now with the special category mechanism and other additional changes I know to speak is make sure the tariff scheme is as broad as possible to provide support, not a halfway house, but initial tariffs to reflect changes.

I will have to write to noble members about the grievance process and staff monitoring. I will come back to you. In terms of victims of unethical practices, everyone who has been touched by the horrendous and heartbreaking scandal will have and heartbreaking scandal will have their own stories in their own chance to talk about things that touch their hearts. When we talked about this in the House, it is the heartbreak and you cannot help but cry knowing what happens to them.

Victims of unethical practices have to be appropriately compensated and you cannot compensate for what happens to anyone affected by the scandal. There's not enough money in the world to make up for what's happened and we have to make sure people are properly competitive. We have got to consult and the report has been clear that people had been listened to but not heard and we must make sure people feel that they have in hard and that there is a balance.

We must make sure that there are genuine changes in people feel they have been listened to and we must make sure the consultation is done properly and there are two different levels of review and the first full start in August. We will discuss the findings in the House and be fast in the other place for them to be a body to make sure they do the appropriate work and the review starts in August. The Minister for the Cabinet of Your Office is thinking about the best way for a true consultation exercise and we hope to start that process in October and make sure that we get it right so people feel that we are moving forward appropriately.

In terms of the statutory compensation body that I was asked about, this issue was responded to when we were discussing horizon and in terms of bringing things forward and be brought forward the dashboard and also we must have a list of recommendations made by public inquires to make sure we are implementing them. An important point is under discussion at the moment and I hope to discuss it in more detail. In terms of timescales not changing, I want to reassure the House that this is about backstops, not targets.

We would expect... What we have seen is they have started increasing the number of people they are contacting in terms of the infected community and, while there are deadlines, backstops, we hope to bring forward as quickly as possible and make sure we get it right and we want the community to be expedited on the terms that have been laid out and obviously there are slightly different issues because it is a wider group of people but we will move forward clearly.

I had hoped to get an answer on how many people are currently involved but I do not have the headcount to hand. In terms of looking ahead, we are clear that there is a lot of work to do going forward and I want to do it with all members of the House. I am determined that we continue to work collaboratively to progress to work and continue in the spirit that has characterised debates on this issue. This is about all of us working together to make sure next steps work for everybody and get us to the point where the detail of the scheme matches up to its intent.

These are not small changes we are proposing. The decisions we have announced our currently estimated to cost a further £1 billion of public money in further compensation payments. It will take time to achieve them, particularly with those which we put to consultation in the community. The further report was clear that the actions that we take next must sure that we have heard the community and listen to them and involving the community in decisions that matter to them if the only way forward.

Before we move on to backbench questions, I thank the noble Baroness is on the front bench and colleagues who are going to speak. Your tireless work has ensured we have got to this place and we are all sad that is camp is not able to be with us today but she, Lady Featherstone, Lady Finlay, Lady Brinton, Baroness Thornton, and Lady Brinton, Baroness Thornton, and Lord Coe have been to nation -- Lord Howe. You have been tenacious and worked on behalf of those who have had no voice and the platform and be delivered for those touched by the appalling scandal and I'm grateful for all of your efforts.
12:36
12:39
12:39
12:41
12:42
12:44
12:46
12:46
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:51
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - committee stage (day 2)
-

House to be again in committee on the planning and infrastructure bill.
12:51
12:52
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

After After clause After clause 12, After clause 12, Amendment After clause 12, Amendment 50. Lord Lucas. I beg to move Amendment 50.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move Amendment 50. Looking at livestock markets and... Is critical market infrastructure, would reveal a coherent response to problems building up over many years, in the 1970s, the UK had around 2,500 abattoirs, by 2024, that has dropped to fewer than 200. That has resulted in a rising trend in animal suffering long journeys by road and a sharp decline in the availability of abattoirs catering for independent and local food suppliers such as pushers and restaurants wishing to supply local meat and farmers wishing to be part of local produce marketing arrangements.

Both of those things are things we should have careful. We have these animals in our trust and to treat them badly when we could treat them better is not something we should contemplate. And we do need to cater for local and individual food markets if we are to have a healthy food economy. Abattoirs and livestock markets are difficult to site, abattoirs, for obvious reasons, livestock markets because of the traffic, near major because of the traffic, near major road junctions, taking noise away from towns.

But sites are difficult to get planning for because the need for the site is national, but the knees the application is assessed against is local. So it makes for a difficult and uncertain planning process. If we are to have a rational structure, if we are to have something that really works for us as a nation, we need some clear thinking as to what should go where. Not instantly, but over time, the evolution of a plan that makes sense, with good communications, outside of town centres, making sure animals can be dealt with humanely and profitably.

And it would have the benefit of freeing up land occupied by current sites within towns and that will be appreciated by locals as well as by the industry. Altogether, it ought to be a good thing to do. To make it happen, it needs to be thought throughout a national level and not developed half-heartedly and randomly, trying to make things happen locally. That does not work. We have just seen a process of further decline, further intensification and further discomfort for animals and lack of facilities for food producers.

Such an initiative might sensibly be combined with looking at the case for strategic logistics and supply chain hubs, which need much the same sort of location, away from town centres and near good, strong, road and rail transport. And have much the same difficulties in organising planning, in that they are judged by, do we need this near Basingstoke? Rather than, is this a logical part of the national logical part of the national structure of road transport? I have been looking at a particular proposal for such a hard near Hampshire, mostly because I spent a lot of my life crawling over the railway workings there, which is one of the most glorious sites for Shortland flowers, I -- chalk land flowers, a botanical heaven.

The problems are, the advantages that would come through, some element of national planning, some bringing in national considerations to abattoirs and livestock markets, to the transport hubs, so that instead of everything coming in to Southampton, having to go up to the Midlands and down again, it can be dealt with more logically locally, or whatever more logically locally, or whatever other structure works nationally. It is something I think the government could reasonably contemplate, given some thought to that taking forward.

I beg to move.
12:57
Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, after clause 12, insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to support my colleague, Lord Lucas, in another colleague, Lord Lucas, in another place I represented Northampton. In those days, when I was first elected those days, when I was first elected in February 1974, they had a very in February 1974, they had a very active market in an abattoir on the fringes. That has been gone now for fringes. That has been gone now for the best part of 1/4 of a century. And yet the need is still there.

My And yet the need is still there. My noble friend is right, there is a need. Because the nature of need. Because the nature of businesses today, as opposed to 50 years ago, has changed. The demand years ago, has changed. The demand is therefore local pubs, local restaurants, local small businesses restaurants, local small businesses allied to this area. And additionally, we should never forget additionally, we should never forget this and I'm sure none of us to forget it but it does get forgotten, forget it but it does get forgotten, it is animal welfare.

You have a situation today where many of these animals taken to an abattoir are animals taken to an abattoir are travelling for 50 miles, 60 miles or more. That is not good animal welfare. We have only got to see, as I saw the other evening on the television, the amount of problems with some animals not being looked after properly. One was the RSPCA in relation to dogs. My honourable friend is right. I'm not sure he is right totally in saying it has to be a totally national thing, I think there has to be a national strategy, yes.

I hope much of it would be done in conjunction with the NFU, who have always taken an interest in this area, but I suspect, I am from the East Midlands, I suspect we could do it equally well within an overall national objective, to do it on a regional basis. We have other things done on a regional basis and done very successfully. I hope the Minister has an open mind on this. And that he has an enthusiasm to take it forward. Because the principle of the amendment me today is in my judgement very important.
13:00
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
I am very pleased to support the amendment of Lord Lucas. My interest in animal welfare and good quality meat comes from the south-west, and talking over many years with the butchers who supply good me. -- Meet. The two problems identified are the distance of travel, which is a very serious animal welfare issue, and the fact that over the last 20 or 30 years, I am told, the supermarkets have put pressure on government to close as many small abattoirs as possible, so they can Think the combination of these issues, as well as something we discussed before seems to be a lot of that who you have to have a VAT to witness the avatar of work, but there seems to be a shortage of competitive supplies of that because one company appears to have got a very large share of the market, so I wonder whether it shouldn't go a little further and look at the whole question of competition in this field and the most important thing, the distance of travel.

In the Isles of Scilly, we have some very nice farmers there, cattle which taste extremely good as well. Some animals are pretty unhappy, and for years, farmers there, they have been lobbying to have an avatar on the island, and finally, after years, the new Duke of Cornwall had agreed to provide some land on St Mary's where an abattoir can be built, and it is a much shorter journey to the abattoir. All the issues that local Lord Lucas has mentioned are still there, but it is very much shorter distance, and I do hope that the government will look at all these things and make sure we have a competitive market for this, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is very animal friendly. I rise fairly briefly to start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise fairly briefly to start with one statistic. There are 100 million animals killed for meat in the UK every month, which is quite a the UK every month, which is quite a statistic. There are 75,000 people who work in abattoirs and associated who work in abattoirs and associated institutions. I think this amendment institutions. I think this amendment raises an important issue, whether this is the right way to address it, I'm not sure, because as other I'm not sure, because as other speakers have already said, we are speakers have already said, we are speaking about an issue here.

ICS at speaking about an issue here. ICS at the heart of the foot issue. The institutions are associated with institutions are associated with giant abattoirs. We are also
13:04
13:06
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
These benches support the amendments and we thank him for raising this. We also thank him for taping this in good time so that this committee could consider it. So, this seeks to designate markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure. This is not merely a technical adjustment but a vital step towards securing the future of our rural communities, ensuring robust food security and upholding the highest standards of animal welfare across the nation. The Lib Dems have been consistent about the critical importance of maintaining and investing in small abattoirs and local livestock markets.

We see them not just as commercial facilities but as essential pillars for rural economies. Fundamental to animal welfare, and crucial for food traceability. They are the very backbone of the food systems and they enable ethical production, allowing for shorter supply chains and reduced food miles, about which we have had something already. The closure of small abattoirs, and we have already had from the noble Lady such as operations in England such as operations in England falling to 49 has exacerbated pressures on our rural communities, leading to significant challenges, including thousands of farm animals being cold, the meat unable to be sold due to a lack of workforce.

I won't get into the Brexit legacy, but this is clearly part of that. According to a 2022 food standards agency report, small abattoirs are closing at 10% per year, and within a decade, they may disappear altogether, so this is not just an economic loss but a profound waste and a blow to animal welfare. Animals often face longer more stressful journeys to distant facilities. In the House of Commons during this passage, my colleague whose family are six generation farmers in Somerset highlighted the impact of cost pressures, such as the 20% rise in meat inspection fees which disproportionately affect these vital facilities.

We have consistently called for the replacement of the small abattoir fund which was removed, and proposed a 1 billion addition to the farming budget to sustain and enhance these networks, and yes, it was all fully costed when we made this proposal with revenue raising measures. We even advocate for innovative solutions, such as mobile units to improve access in remote areas. The inclusion of avatars is important. We would provide them the protection and longevity they desperately need within future, planning and developing strategies.

Our own 24 Manifesto explicitly commits to investing in rural and coastal infrastructure, including local abattoirs to bolster community resilience and food security, but also to support younger workers in rural areas. This also underpins our own commitment to comprehensive animal welfare bill, which we would love to see, ensuring high animal welfare standards throughout the food supply. This is about providing stability and recognition that is essential. It is about more than just building, about safeguarding the livelihoods of our farmers, ensuring humane treatment for animals and building a more resilient transparent food system for all.

Think of it almost like a circulatory system of our rural economy. The abattoirs and the livestock markets are the vital arteries and veins. Without protecting this core infrastructure, the entire body of the sector and local food supply will struggle to thrive or begin to fail. By acting now, we can revitalise, safeguard our rural heartlands for the generations to come, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
13:10
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I also rise to speak in support of Amendment 50 in the name of my noble Lord Lord Lucas which would recognise livestock markets and abattoirs as critical national infrastructure. I first all the houses attention to my register of interest as a dairy and livestock farmer. This amendment, if passed, would lay the foundation for a new modernised network of these vital services. Positions with proper transport links outside of town centres and designed to ensure that animals are dealt with humanely, locally and offer to play.

As others have pointed out, the abattoir section is in crisis. In 2023, just 60 small abattoirs remained operational in the UK. The number is falling at 10% per annum. At that rate, these essential businesses could vanish entirely. This would be disastrous for rural communities, for food security and animal welfare. Over 90% of abattoirs have closed in the past 50 years. Family farms face round trips of over 100 miles distorted handful of animals. It is inefficient and undermines the very animal welfare standards we seek to uphold.

But it is more than just adjustable problem. It is a threat to the viability of local farming and the vitality of our regional food systems. A resilience which demands a well distributed network, a small abattoir, local butcher and livestock market. These businesses form the bedrock of local food infrastructure. They offer private kill services for farmers who wish to add value by marketing directly to consumers, and they provide an essential lifeline to farmers breeding rare or native reads that larger processes often reads that larger processes often cannot accommodate.

1/3 say that their nearest abattoir has nearly closed. Yet small abattoirs are struggling to survive. They face rising energy costs, increase National Insurance contributions and a regulatory system which disproportionately burdensome. The rules are designed with large-scale processes in mind, not with the nuance of the local operation handling a few thousand livestock units per year. Our previous Conservative government introduced a small abattoir fund to help the small businesses modernise and alleviate costs. The tingly, the Labour government decided to cancel this, sending the wrong message after the family farms death tax and the abrupt cancellation of Sustainable Farming Incentive applications.

Livestock markets are also disappearing from market towns. These are essential part of rural life, where farmers and other rural inhabitants can come together, generating real social cohesion and a shared sense of community. If this government is serious about rural resilience, food security and animal welfare, they should look to support the amendment to the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This memorable provide abattoirs with the planning status they need to invest, modernise and survive. It will allow new facilities to be built with appropriate infrastructure and make it clear that local food systems matter just as much as energy or transport.

Livestock markets will ensure that communities can continue to bond on market days. This amendment speaks to a wider issue of our national life where traditional social infrastructure is made an economic through burdensome regulation, large impersonal businesses are able to cope with this far better than small ones. I would urge the government to consider how it can encourage and empower these community businesses to thrive in all legislations and regulation. regulation.
13:14
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I tend to amendment 50 tabled by Lord Lucas which seeks to create a national policy statement for livestock markets and abattoirs. The government is committed to a resilient food supplied. If a thriving network is important to this for producers including those with native breeds. Despite some challenges, the resilient meat processing continues to ensure food supply and security, and the government remains confident in its strength. The secretary of state already has the power under section 5 of the planning act to designate a national policy statement for any specified description should they choose to exercise their discretion to do so and where this statement meets the criteria set out in this section.

This is a matter which should be considered on a case-by- case basis. Another concern we had with the Lord is that it tends to be at his discretion. We are not currently persuaded that there is a need to create a national policy statement for livestock markets and abattoirs. While I appreciate the noble Lords support, these types of development and not meet the definition of nationally significant It is for that reason unclear what benefits it would have.

Other changes are better suited to supporting an important sector. A couple of points which noble Lords alluded to in relation to animal welfare, which were mentioned. This government was elected on a mandate to introduce most ambitious plans to improve animal welfare in a generation. The Prime Minister has announced he will be publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year. I agree in relation to the government's view that animals should only be transported if it is necessary, and transport should be via the most welfare considerate route.

Jenny durations should be minimised to reduce the risk of welfare complications arising during transport. A number of noble Lords including Baroness Bennett and another baroness talked about small abattoirs and recognising we can do more to create them. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that Local Plan is policy and decisions should allow sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses in rural area is. And there should be diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses. We intend to consult on future policy changes a set of national policy changes for decision-making which will create a more certain set of policies to help drive quicker and more certain decision-making including for infrastructure and barns.

I want to remind the house in relation to particular, the government views food security as national security, and is committed to a resilient food supply chain. DEFRA continues to engage closely with industry via small abattoirs working with the group and small abattoirs supporting and identifying radical solutions to tackle many of the key challenges the industry is currently facing, and which noble Lords have alluded to today. They include challenges with the supply of skilled labour. The government remains firmly committed to the farming sector.

From 2026 we will invest £2.7 billion annually largest ever sustainable amounts to sustainable food production and nature recovery. Streamlining funding to make sure support delivers maximum impact for food security and nature and long- term resilience across supply chains. I hope I have answered the noble Lords questions or considerations, and hope I have reassured Lord Lucas. I kindly ask him to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
13:18
13:20
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is the pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 51, Lord Hunt. I beg to move amendment 51. I will speak also to amendment 91. My will speak also to amendment 91. My noble friend the baroness is not able to be with us today so I have taken on the mantle of championing Carbon Capture Usage and Storage. And seeing the noble Lord in his place, I equally would champion the benefits of hydrogen in the future which he has spent the last year telling the House why it is so important.

CCUS as it is known as the technology aimed at capturing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes, power plants, and other sources. And prevents it from entering the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can either be reused in various industrial applications, or stored permanently in geological formations deep underground. CO2 can then be monitored to make sure it is stored securely. This is a great opportunity for the UK to lead in terms of technology development. And actually our resource of the North Sea offers huge potential opportunities in order to store carbon from other countries in Europe.

My Lords, I am convinced that CCUS is safe. Clearly it contributes to a low carbon society, and great opportunities for growth in our country. The UK is home to seven major industrial clusters that produce 50% of all UK under street emissions. The government quite rightly supporting the element of CCUS in those clusters. Deployment in the first two of those clusters is called track one. The first two clusters were chosen by a process called phase 1 launch in 2021.

These are high net in the north-west of England, North Wales, and the East Coast cluster in Teesside. In October last year, 20 £1.7 billion was made available in funding, the first CCUS projects in the UK. Looking at the timescale, the last government was very supportive of CCUS as well. We are at a pivotal moment. The first carbon capture projects in the UK have reached financial close and that government is killing making strong commitment to support across the industrial heartlands.

But, progress is at risk by updated or inconsistent planning rules. At present, the CO2 infrastructure, especially short capture plants is ambiguous under the current system. As an example, projects under 10 miles in length do not fall within the nationally significant in project, despite being essential component of major decarbonisation efforts. There are also legacy legal barriers such as the requirement special Parliamentary procedure's under the Pipelines Act 1962, the compulsory purchase of land related to CO2 pipeline.

This process is not required for other comparable infrastructure, and risks introducing unnecessary delay. My two focused amendments seek first to ensure CO2 captured plant and short projects are designated as National eating figures infrastructure projects under the 2008 act. Unlikely to remove the need for special Parliamentary procedure under the Pipelines Act where it applies to CCUS infrastructure. These are very limited but important changes. And I hope, the spirit of this legislation, despite much of the debate that we have seen so far, is actually about growth and growing our economy, making it easy to develop infrastructure.

I very much hope my noble friend will agree to help with this. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 12, insert the new clause as printed in the Martial list. The question is
13:24
Lord Grayling Portrait Lord Grayling (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the Martial list. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. I rise to support the principle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the principle of what the noble Lord is suggesting of what the noble Lord is suggesting but with a but. And this is what I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to over the summer before we come back to debates in the autumn. Lord Hunt is actually right, CCUS is extremely important to this country. It needs to be progressed expeditiously. It provides an important part of how we deal with the issue of carbon emissions in the atmosphere.

And so he is right to bring forward this proposal. My but is more broadly related to the type of project that this covers, by NSIP. I should declare my interests as an adviser to Hudson cap Port. My concern is more about the implications of more and more categories of project. Being covered by these processes. The issue I want the Minister to address across the summer is this, before we come to it in part three, at the moment this legislation, when it comes to major projects of this kind allows developers to simply move ahead, provide compensation to the funds that the government is setting up, and effectively to clear a site.

Whereas I strongly believe that the balance of presumption should be a developer should have a duty to examine what is on the site, to take precautionary methods around the biodiversity on that site before they come to take action away from that site. The more that we grant permission to those seeking to pursue major projects, the ability to simply move away from any environmental responsibilities, the more damage that will be done to biodiversity in our environment. I was involved as Secretary of State in the process of taking the action of Heathrow Airport through Parliament six years ago.

And there were some issues we face. They were nonsensical. Around the way in which the Habitats Directive was applied, which I think defied common sense. So change is clearly needed, and I accept the principle of what the government is doing. But I just want to see the precautionary principle left in legislation or put back the legislation. It requires a developer whether it is for CCUS or another major project, to simply look carefully at what is on the site and look at how they ameliorate the impact before they simply pay money to a fund and wash their hands of it.

My request to the Minister, as he thinks this through across the summer, is to look at what can be done with the legislation to stop done with the legislation to stop the slash and burn approach but leaves us with the kind of things that Lord Hunt is rightly saying we that Lord Hunt is rightly saying we need to do.
13:27
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to speak to both of these amendments tabled by Lord Hunt. On these benches, we are broadly supportive of amendment 51, and we support amendments 91. The first amendment, 51, seeks to amend the planning act 2008, to clarify carbon dioxide pipelines and carbon capture equipment are eligible for designated Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The second amendment seeks to directly amend the Pipelines Act 1962. The requirement for special pulmonary procedure where a compulsory purchase order is made for a CO2 pipeline for carbon capture and storage.

Both amendments in their different ways seek to make practical changes to speed up the building and of element of carbon capture and storage projects. The Climate Change Committee was clear that there is no route to net zero without carbon capture and storage. Going forward, we need this technology, particularly for the hard to abate industries such as cement and glass. Where we have to capture the CO2. On these benches, we support carbon capture and storage. It is a key part of our private change and our strategy to achieve net zero stop we are committed to accelerating the deferment of these technologies to help further reduce and control our emissions.

Indeed the UK is in a good place for doing this. We have an estimated 78 billion tonnes of CO2 storage capacity under the seabed in the North Sea from our old oil wells. As part of that declining basin. I spent a bit of time last night trying to understand the system around carbon capture and storage was I must admit I ended up scratching my head a little bit because it is not the clearest thing I have ever read.

Lord Hunt has definitely tapped an important issue here. Trying to understand which bits are carbon capture and storage and which are not is easier said than done. So we recognise the need for clarity on these points. Turning to the amendment itself, I think my only real worry with the amendment is that the landscape as it exists now for planning is complicated. I took particular note of the fact that Lord Hunt said it was spurned pipelines of less than 10 miles in length.

But the less than 10 miles in length is not in the wording of the amendment. And I worry a little bit about the definitions that the noble Lord has put forward and whether they will fit with the existing regulations and existing regulations and In terms of our position, we definitely recognise the need to look again at this landscape. I think the definitions used in the amendment might possibly need further tightening, but I think that is something that we want the government to comment on and come back on.

Turning to the Second Amendment, amendment 91, this is the idea of carbon capture, and this concerns what we have in place. There was an attempt to update that with section 12 a, but legal commentary on recent legislated developments indicate a recognition that there is an extra layer of special Parliamentary procedure which is unnecessary to our development. So we do support the noble Lord on this amendment. We do think this could further delay and slow down objects.

My personal opinion is we haven't had enough parliamentary debate or scrutiny. There hasn't been enough come forward for the opportunity to discuss these things. There is huge amounts of money being put forward. I think it is important that these things are debated. All that they provide money. These are untested situations, and it is important that these things are scrutinised. It is also important that we use this technology which is primarily used for difficult or hard to abate sectors.

This is not a technology that allows fossil fuel companies get a free jail card. So, we welcome this amendment. this amendment.
13:32
13:33
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
We welcome the sentiment behind these amendments as proposed by the noble Lord Lord Hunt. It is clear that if we are going to meet our net-zero targets, there is a need for long-term sustainable technologies such as carbon capture and storage. They must be a part of the conversation. The potential to decarbonise sectors such as heavy industry, I can't quite remember the phase that was used, but those that couldn't be done in other ways are really important and significant.

We also recognise on these benches that infrastructure plays an important supporting role in innovation and low carbon growth, allowing certain carbon capture projects to be designated to offer a more streamlined path to planning approval, removing unnecessary approval, removing unnecessary barriers to that, but my noble friend Lord Grayling, as was pointed out earlier in this day, it has been 184 days, and some of us are getting a little tired. I must also offer a note of caution and a bit of about.

While CCS is a promising technology, it is not without its challenges. It is expensive, it is not a silver bullet, and it is somewhat untested, and therefore, as the noble Earl pointed out, we do need closer scrutiny of this to make sure that it can be done commercially and at scale which, to date, it has not been done and it has been proven to be viable. We do not want a technology that is going to cost the taxpayer money, and there are other technologies that could also achieve this.

We should also consider it as part of a broader strategy. We must continue to prioritise clean energy, particularly dense technologies such as nuclear. It is our duty to ensure that the cost of decarbonisation are not unfairly borne by households and businesses already facing significant financial pressures. So, while I will support the intention of this amendment and agree that enabling clarity in planning and law is important, we must proceed with care. Our route net-zero must be grounded in economic and technical reality.
13:36
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I want to turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath relates to carbon capture and storage designation. I thank my friend were tabling these amendments. Turning to amendment 51 which attempts to amend the planning act to allow designation of carbon dioxide and carbon capture equipment as nationally significant infrastructure projects. As my noble friend knows well from his time as Minister of State at the Department of energy and net-zero, this government recognises the important role of carbon capture and storage in securing growth, achieving climate goals and transitioning to a low carbon economy.

That is why we have committed to substantial investment to support the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage across the UK. However, while the government is committed to the deployment of carbon capture, transport and storage, this amendment could lead to information as it would provide a source in consenting routes. In short, there is a capacity exceeding 50 MW including those using carbon capture technology and the planning act 2008, and require a development consent order. Onshore carbon dioxide pipelines, those are also classified as N6 and require DCO.

However, smaller pipelines and industrial carbon capture facilities sit outside of the regime, and applications for development are determined by the local planning authorities and the town planning act 1990. This is the consenting process for industrial facilities more broadly, and experience from the planning process for the first carbon capture and transport projects has not identified issues for projects determined by the local planning authorities thus far. Nevertheless, there was an asset and officials in my department are working closely with the Department of net-zero to ensure the full range of consenting regimes for carbon capture, transport remains appropriate.

Turning to the next amendment, the 6 to amend the pipelines to the supply for Parliamentary procedure for pipelines which are to be repurposed for the conveyance of carbon dioxide. It should be noted that, as drafting, it would not legally achieve its intended process, allowing the Secretary of State to evolve a back order. Nevertheless, where this to be addressed, and while I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, this would not be practical. Section of the pipeline act allows a Secretary of State to make an order for the compulsory acquisition of rights that are necessary for the conversion to portray carbon dioxide.

It is subject to special Parliamentary procedure. The government recognises that it can be more efficient to repurposed existing pipelines for use in carbon capture and storage project, compared to building new infrastructure. The pipeline infrastructure is considered suitable, the government supports this. We have recently legislated to remove the tax barrier which we were told would suit assets such as pipelines and platforms in transport and storage. However, as the works involved in pipelines for the conveyance would impact local communities with the acquisition of lands to remain subject to a special Parliamentary procedure would ensure scrutiny of such proposals.

The government supports the repurposed thing of onshore and offshore for using these, and story projects as part of the U.K.'s drive to net- zero. We are already seeing this in practice whether carbon capture and cluster will be served by a combination of new and existing infrastructure. We are committed to ensuring the right support and mechanisms are in place to enable onshore and offshore infrastructure and hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment, but before I sit down, I refer to the important points we share, and I take the points taken cute seriously and not with the wider environment take place after the summer.

We will consider your points over the summer as requested. The point made a mainly been debated in September, so mainly been debated in September, so we can pick up in response. Those reasons I ask my noble friend to beg leave to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And grateful to all lords who have taken part. The intervention was very interesting. I take the
13:41
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
was very interesting. I take the point about the principal and I would say that a degree of proportionality is regulated in the way we have, which is why the current regulators really are up the kind of dynamic change we need and the way they perform. And that is why there are concerns about part why there are concerns about part three. There are concerns from those about nature protection which I will understand, and equally, my concern is that we are putting a hell of a lot of responsibility on Natural England in relation to EDP, and the way I read it, this bill is largely written around requirements, and I can see how EDP's can appeal to a particular area which is a pretty unknown quantity, how this will work with infrastructure projects.

I take his point. Lord Jamieson, he is absolutely right. We are taking a punt on this, and I think the fact is that while we continue to work on this, we do see enough to say that we can pick this off, and the potential for the UK is enormous. Both in terms of our approach to climate change but also, with this huge export potential. On the actual wording of the bill, I have checked back on the planning act, and within it, there was an order making part either Secretary of State which can deal with the flexibilities with the length of the pipeline.

I should say, as I took the energy bits of that act, I do feel an affinity towards that perfectly formed legislation. As far as the noble Lord the Minister, I am really grateful because clearly, he and his officials are having a look at this. I noted that he didn't think much of my amendment 91, so I will have to go away and reflect on that, but what I would say to him is this. I think this argument mainly was we don't really think this is a problem but we will have a look at it.

My intelligence is that cc US developers do think it could be a problem. If we can iron out some of these principal things, it would be really helpful. I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. This amendment be withdrawn. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 52 and 53 already Amendments 52 and 53 already Amendments 52 and 53 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 53.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debated. Not moved. Amendment 53. I rise to speak on amendment 53 a of Lord Shipley who is unable to be of Lord Shipley who is unable to be here today. This bill is part of the here today. This bill is part of the government's programme to unleash new infrastructure projects across sectors and in every part of the sectors and in every part of the country. It is a vital part of the strategy for growth. Such projects strategy for growth.

Such projects are hugely costly, complex, and contain many uncertainties, especially in their early stages. Many of them will involve public investment or have a major impact on
13:45
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ordinary people, and integrity and transparency are vital if we are not to waste money undermining public trust and failing to get the The earliest warning that things are going wrong and are being covered up come from whistleblowers. If whistleblowers had been heard we could have avoided the Grenfell tragedy. I know one tower is not a national infrastructure projects, but the silencing even where lives was at stake of whistleblowers both in construction and safety industries has a real read across and we start looking at new towns.

The Elizabeth line we were told constantly was on time and on budget. Until suddenly four months before it was due to open, we learned that there were major problems. It opened 3 1/2 years late and £4 billion over budget. Why didn't even the Mayor of London no earlier? That is because whistleblowers have been silenced. HS2, I can use the names of two of whistleblowers because they have gone public. Doug Thornton and Andrew Bruce. Very senior engineers who were fired for doing their jobs with integrity, in informing management of huge costing errors, and refusing to falsify figures.

They did not just lose their jobs. For years, they suffered blacklisting in the industry. It is not just whistleblowers who pay the price. Those who died at Grenfell were victims, taxpayers paying huge cost overruns are victims. We now live with a shortened HS2, cost of which is still unknown. I have great faith in the new HS2 CEO Mark Wild. But while he can uphold a speak out culture in his organisation, he cannot insure it in contractors, suppliers, consultants, and for so many others engaged.

My amendment sets up a whistleblowing and oversight body for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. It would have the necessary expertise to receive whistleblower disclosures, protect whistleblowers from detriment, and to investigate. What is in place today is the same whistleblowing framework that allowed Grenfell, the Elizabeth line and HS2 to happen. There are many more examples all over the country of failures covered up and whistleblowers silenced including school, hospital, and housing projects. The current whistleblowing framework protects the confidentiality for a limited set of workers making their disclosures to a limited set of prescribed people.

Confidentiality often does not work because people have already spoken out to colleagues and others. If whistleblowers lose their jobs, they can if they are employees go to the employment tribunal. A single day with a barrister, and a barrister is vital to pursue cases effectively, costs £3000. Multiply that by the number of days, witness statements, and all the preparation, you begin to get an idea of the financial cost of doing it. Whistleblower must prove they are not fired for some reason other than whistleblowing which requires hard evidence the tribunal is very clear on that.

And most people can't access hard evidence to prove that they were not fired for some of the region. They must survive delays and appeals lasting years during which they have no income. They know if they lose they will have to pay the legal fees of the employer. Informal job blacklisting is a scandal but is a norm and is never addressed by the tribunal. That is why most whistleblowers settle & Non- Disclosure Agreements Bill club directors, self-employed contractors, customers, suppliers, are not protected at all if they speak out under the current blowing framework.

Someone will note my preference is to set up a central office under the Cabinet Office which has a hub of expertise and with the necessary core powers would link to the relevant regulators and enforcement agencies. But so far the government has not warmed to that idea. For that reason and the urgency of the issue, I am proposing this narrower approach, that of a body that is focused purely on national infrastructure projects. My Lords, one definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Launching on a major program of infrastructure and expecting people to speak out when things go wrong, while the current whistleblowing framework remains unchanged or just a bit tweaked here and there is frankly insanity indeed. So I ask the government to listen, and either accept my amendment or find other ways to come properly to grips with the need for safe whistleblowing. Going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 12, insert the new clause is printed 12, insert the new clause is printed in the Martial list. The question is this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be agreed to. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness comments, and I was not
13:51
Lord Grayling Portrait Lord Grayling (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness comments, and I was not planning to speak given the fact I was also secretary of state alongside the Mayor of London we had the bad news about crossrail, I thought I would contribute a thought to this discussion. First of all she's right about issues. Clearly what happened in 2019 was a combination of head in the sand, lack of understanding of the complexity of crossrail projects, and it was outrageous that the mayor and I only discovered as late as we did that this was a project that was as far off track as it was.

That is the reason I set up the Review into HS2 and identified that the project could not be delivered for the budget that was there. Indeed I said to him clearly, that is your budget and you have to deliver it mathematically otherwise there is a question about whether it can happen at all. What I would say to her, she makes an important point, but equally we do have to remember also we have the project of disaffected employees. How do you deal with a whistleblower who has a separate agenda? Someone who has been dismissed or is unhappy at work? I am not convinced that setting up a separate agency is the right way to deal with what she is suggesting.

But I do think she is making a point that the project, there needs to be an earlier mechanism to raise a danger flag about a project that is not going away should. There is a reluctance to tell truth to power. There is an optimism bias in these projects and I would suggest to her that possibly a route by the new infrastructure body to have some form of investigator reroll if someone says this project appears to be going badly wrong, that might be a better way of doing it than setting up a separate body altogether.

I do think she makes an important point. The reality is the mayor and I should never have been in the position we are in discovering so late in the day that the project we have been told very clearly was on track and was going to be first trains running in December. That should never have happened. And I think she makes a valid point in saying there should be safeguarding mechanisms in the system. But I think the mechanisms that should exist robbery are best handled through the national infrastructure bodies than through a separate organisation in its own right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very sympathetic to what the Minister has said, but rather like Lord Grayling I'm not
13:54
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
rather like Lord Grayling I'm not sure another statutory body the right way to deal with this. I think back to my experience in the NHS. I can't think of that number, they have been so many whistleblowing initiatives, there have been edicts, there have been circulars, as it we have some legislation as well. But I think we find it hard to say we think the NHS has a culture in which whistleblowers feel confident. We don't. I think the noble Baroness has raised a very important question which I hope the government will consider.

I feel we need to start talking to the leaders of organisations, to really understand what the issue is in relation to whistleblowers. It is of course partly the point Lord Grayling has raised. Sometimes whistleblowers can be awkward people, and therefore they have already built up a sort of feeling against them. Sometimes they could be making trouble. But often they are raising very legitimate points. I think part of the problem is that punitive culture from senior managers in much of the public sector.

Why didn't NHS Chief Executive's discourage whistleblowers? It is because we have a punitive culture, and a turnover rate of CEOs in the health service is frightening. It is so rapid. Somehow to deal with whistleblowing we have to look at a much wider issue as to whether we set the conditions in which leaders actually first of all have got greater freedom to develop and grow their organisations from the current micromanagement. And second, we need a culture in which, if CEOs really do encourage their staff to raise concerns, that actually the system then does not come down.

You can see the tension. I am sure that many CEOs know that in their hospital trust at some point, there are unsafe services. They know they don't have enough clinical staff. But the penalty for actually admitting it is to have regulatory intervention. And managerial intervention from above which basically says you get on with it, you're much more concerned about finance and throughput. I think unless we are realistic about why senior management does not encourage whistleblowers, the reality is any of these kinds of initiatives will not be effective in the end.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise briefly with pleasure to offer support to
13:57
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
pleasure to offer support to Baroness Kramer who is the hat House knowledge expert and champion the whole area whistleblowing. And I think reacting to some of the other comments, the noble Lady said she would prefer an overarching system rather than what we have now. It is clearly very important with the huge changes in this bill if things are going wrong that we are able to see them and whistleblowers can safely speak out. I think Lord Hunt raised the health service. I think it would be really useful to reference our early debates to today.

Baroness Brinton went through a long list. And I think ran on the theme she has long been running on about, we just have this cascade of continuing scandals and crisis with all sorts of harrowing outcomes. I don't think the noble Lady mentioned but some of these are actually quite recent and possibly still ongoing issues. It is a systemic problem about the structure of government and the weight structure is working. You're potentially giving the government much more power here.

I want to fulfil my traditional Greek role here adds to the thought that the impact on the environment. And when environmental issues are going horribly wrong, as they potentially will be, and I note that the government has, since we were last debated in committee, the government has brought out some changes to the highly controversial part three that the noble Lord referred to. In response to those changes, the Office for Environmental Protection has said " That the bill would in some respects lower environmental protections on the face of the law.

" That is what is being said. If we are lowering environmental protections, there is a risk that environmentally, and of course the environment also means human health impacts as well. Whistleblowers need to be able to speak up and point out what is happening, people from within the organisation, maybe the only people who really know what is happening. And finally I thank the noble Lady for mentioning HS2 so I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't have to. My Lords, can I thank Lady Kramer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank Lady Kramer for tabling this amendment. It is clear that it is well-intentioned, the proposal raises important questions about how individuals can share concerns relating to this. We
13:59
14:01
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Kramer seeks to insert a new clause which would require the secretary of state to establish an independent body to receive and investigate nationally important infrastructure, including responsibilities and oversight and protections for whistleblowers. Regime is responsible for delivering consenting decisions on the most complex and critical infrastructure projects. The framework underpinned by the planning act 2008 is based on principles of fairness and transparency. As we have heard through the debate, it is vital that the government's decisions on major products are properly informed by relevant expert bodies as well as those affected the application, including landowners, local authorities and local communities.

That is what the planning act and regime enables. This process includes the prance band appointment of an examining authority which has six months to consider the views of local authorities and other interested parties as part of their examination of an application. It also involves*as parties in examining and enables them to outline any concerns they have. Based on this, the secretary of state has the ability to look at the consent order and must prepare and publicise a statement of reasons for the decision.

And finally, the lawfulness of decisions can be challenged in courts. While I would be in today to hit the noble Ladies views today, I do not share the view that whistleblowing is a widespread issue within the regime. Or that there is sufficient evidence to warrant action. More broadly, I understand Baroness Kramer has long called for the introduction of an office of the whistleblower to centralise and try disclosures in standards and provide support to those considering making a disclosure of information.

However, the government does not support the establishment of an officer of the whistleblower at this time. The government believes this should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operation of the framework. I also do not agree that this is something which should be tackled through this bill. The government is keen to work with organisations and individuals who have ideas on how to further strengthen the whistleblowing framework. Our first priority is the employment rights bill which delivers on strengthening whistleblowers.

I don't think the fact that they are the best argument to take. This will be really important issue to discuss here in the relevant focus that there is no example given by the noble Lady which would be given consent to the regime that goes through the system, so I asked the noble Lady beg leave and withdraw.
14:04
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have to say that I am not encouraged by the government response, and it seems to be a weakness, not to recognise how essential it is that there is transparency in major infrastructure projects that is for the sake of everybody involved, but I was very encouraged by the comments across the rest of the floor. I'm not precious about how whistleblowing is structured except that the body, the channel needs to be genuinely perceived as independent, have the power to protect whistleblowers, and make sure that investigation follows when necessary.

One is on grievances. One part of the reason for having an expert bodies that they are also very expert at identifying the truth under a grievance, but also, there can be mischievous reporting and whistleblowing expertise is very good at quickly winnowing that out. That is because that is not what you're going to focus your time and your energy or your effort and you want to make sure to stop in its tracks, but we know from experience across the globe that this is very well managed.

On the issue of what we need to do is change the culture. That is what they used to say in the US until officers of whistleblowing were introduced widely across the financial sector and being picked up by the Department of Transport. It may change the trumpet ministration, but you are seeing them picked up across other areas in the United States because having an office of the whistleblower but the appropriate kind of powers has had a dramatic impact on the culture. There has been a sharp drop in the kind of ad actors because people know that they are not safe.

There is no greater deterrent for knowing that somebody will sneak out and it very much changes the whole culture within an industry. And it is also important to recognise that, with a good whistleblowing system, you get information very early. It is the canary in the mine, and therefore you know very early on that something is going wrong when you have got scope to act, to correct, to manage. So it is truly an important mechanism to save a project as well as protects the public, so I'm fascinated that this argument is beginning to get widespread recognition and traction, and let me suggest because I am supportive of a great deal of new infrastructure across the UK, that we must have with it a mechanism that means that disclosure happens transparency happens, at the earliest possible moment when things go wrong and before they turn into project destroying that is a phenomenon.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Withdrawn? Is it your Lordships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Withdrawn? Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is Bailey withdrawn. Amendment 50 3B, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
14:08
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heath. High-rise. It seeks to remove the requirement for regular justification in relation to new nuclear power stations. I want to nuclear power stations. I want to acknowledge here the work in inspiring the amendment and produce an opinion on the justification of practices involved ionising radiation regulations 2004. I should also say that I read with great interest the opposition amendments coming from Lord Offord. These have not been group with mine, but we will be debating these later in September.

He is much more radical than I am in the history amendments. His amendments will do supply all the provisions on the conservation habitat and species regulation of 2017 in relation to the development between nuclear power stations. The Lord forgive the secretary say the power to grant planning consent for a nuclear power station, regardless of environment impact assessment, and the opposition also want applications for the Secretary of State's decision to grant development and send for nuclear power station on the grounds of non-compliance with habitat regulations or environmental protection obligations.

It is a bit of a turnaround from what the opposition was saying last week, and the point I'm making is very modest in comparison to Lord Offord, and I hope I would get support around the house for this, so only a few days ago, we had the very welcome conclusion, and that followed on a few weeks from the decision to give Rolls-Royce financial support after an exercise conducted by great British nuclear to look at modular reactors in the UK.

Globally, we are seeing a renaissance in new nuclear power. The agency this year reported more than 70 GW of new nuclear plastic which is under construction globally. This is one of the highest levels in 30 years. The IEA commented that take advantage of the opportunities in nuclear power offers which have been low carbon and central baseload to energy infrastructure largely moving towards renewables, is that it does remove a stable regulatory framework, and I very much welcome the appointment by the government of the nuclear regulating task force they have been asked to look at how the regulation of safety, environmental planning and other areas could be improved, and they are charged with publishing reports in autumn this year, and the recommendations to go direct to the prime minister.

One area I hope the task force will be considering is the current ludicrous requirement for regulatory justification. Before a nuclear power station is built, its design must be assessed to find out if the social economic other benefits outweigh the health detriment ionising radiation. This assessment process is known as regulatory justification. In the UK principle set out in the justification of practices involving ionising radiation regulations 2004, these regulations require a new type of practice involving ionised radiation, such as nuclear power stations to undergo a generic high level pre-optimisation assessment, and whether the socio-economic benefits outweigh the health detriment.

This is a completely arcane, wasteful process, costing huge amounts of money and delaying an application process by about two years. And it absolutely achieves absolutely nothing given that we have world-renowned extensive regulatory systems in place to ensure the safety of nuclear power stations. Now, I suspect my noble friend might say that we have to wait. I get that. But I do hope that the government will be prepared to amend at report stage if the task force comes up with some very strong recommendations around this area.

In the meantime, the government could take a small step to improve the situation. I'm grateful to Catherine Howard for her work on this. Our understanding is that, under the current regulatory justification procedure, each and every small modular reactor developer has to submit their design for regulatory justification. Now, I think we should go back to why we have got these regulations in the first place, and I think examples might be the use of x-rays in prisons or bone density scanners for sports, performance assessment.

Which are required to obtain regular justification, and this is to ensure the small risk of human health a poser outweighed by the benefits. The regulation justification applies not to each and every type of x-ray machine and bone density scanner back to them as a class of ionising radiation practice. This is an existing type of practice if it is carried out legally without regulator justification before 6 February 2018, or if it is already be found to justified for both.

I would argue that the small modular reaction designs coming forward could be included within both a and B. And the results of that is that it would do away with the current position, that each SMR developer making separate applications. I think I need to understand. I am very grateful to Stephen Truman who helped with the opinion he produced, but it also made me look up a 2010 Justification Decision by the Justification Decision by the Secretary of State.

Essentially, reading through it, the Secretary of State says it is justified because we have a strong reggae to system. If ever regulation was completely useless, this is it, and the trouble is that once you have a regulation like that, it is very difficult to move away from it, and all sorts of reasons will be given, but here is a simple way of speeding out the introduction of SMRs. It is clear that Rolls-Royce have got government supports. There are many other developers who are bringing forward proposals in the UK.

It is perfectly possible that we may be able to get entire private sector investment in developing this, and we need to encourage it, not put a wasteful regulatory system in place in order to actually disadvantage those regulators. I hope the government will be rather sympatric on this. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 12 include the words is printed on the Martial list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly support this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly support this amendment, and number 53B which seeks to relieve newly commissioned power stations of the burdens of the regulations concerning ionising radiation. These regulations have accumulated over time and have accumulated over time and have become a Bisan time legal code. They require justifications from a wide
14:16
14:17
14:18
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
green party as opposed to new nuclear power plants. I would also say to those who are proponents of the nuclear power, the careful what they wish for and consider the whole issue of public concern. I have to commend Lord Hunt for managing to get this amendment considered in a timely moment given that this is the week when the government is seeking to go ahead with Sizewell C. It is, as the financial Times newspaper knows, the costliest nuclear reactor in the world.

One that will see the UK taxpayer bearing a huge cost with funding government loans of £3.8 billion under £36 billion loan from the National Wealth Fund. I should declare an interest in that I know many of the people who have opposed the Sizewell C project and will continue I have no doubt to oppose it. There are many reasons why they do oppose that project. Cost is the obvious one. You have got local environmental impacts, the concern about future security, sealevel rises and a whole list of things was but safety is a big issue that people have continuing concerns about with nuclear power.

And no wonder when you consider the list from Chernobyl to Fukushima to the continuing concerns regularly highlighted by the International Energy Agency about Zaporizhzhia in familiar with. I spoke when we were discussing associates about regulating with consent. And what we have seen is commonsense and the many issues showed there was a problem when the previous government went ahead without that real consent and clear understanding within the health sector. I would suggest that if you are looking at nuclear power, those who are in favour would want to see construction with consent.

Construction with reassurance of security. And taking away regulatory justification is not going to play very well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I listen with interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I listen with interest to the remarks of Lady Bennett, and I can assure her that, having heard I can assure her that, having heard last week from both the chairman and chief executive of the Office for chief executive of the Office for Nuclear Regulation who appeared before the Industry and Regulators
14:21
14:23
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
But I have to say, I am surprised that he calls these regulations ludicrous, arcane, wasteful. It may be that the broader landscape these reform, and he is able to raise his points with an amendment here, but clearly an amendment is not a way to look at the reform of this. I do worry that will be to rip up regulation in haste, we will repent at leisure. These are completely different to the planning process, these measures are measures that are designed for new types of nuclear generation technology, to check that they are safe and fit for purpose, to check new designs.

I don't really see them as duplicate, I see them as separate to the planning system operating and doing different functions. My worry with these going ahead in this way that they would serve to undermine the confidence of the safety and security of the nuclear processes that we have in this country. Indeed this is an international standard that is recognised by the ICI P is done around the world and the EU. It does take up to 18 months to undergo these processes, but these processes start before planning.

So I also don't really see exactly how even if this amendment was successful that it would actually do very much to speed up the need for new nuclear generation. The essential argument that the noble Lord is making, is it duplicate? I don't agree, I think they are separate. In passing this regulation would speed up the process of getting UK power. And since they happen first of that is the case either. I have to say, we won't be supporting Noble on this.

There is a need to keep all regulations under review, and if the government wants to do that then we are open to that. I don't think an amendment here is the way either to pressure the government to look at the things broader scope, and we won't be supporting this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 53B in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. This proposes Hunt of Kings Heath. This proposes that sensible and pragmatic change to the requirement for nuclear power stations built, an assessment has to
14:25
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
stations built, an assessment has to be made about whether the social, economic, and other benefits outweigh the Helga Schmid caused by ionising radiation. Yet it seeks to disapply this requirement in cases where planning consent has already been granted. This changes both timely and necessary. We must look carefully at how to prevent nuclear projects from being blocked or delayed. Especially in the context of the wider energy landscape, notably, government are currently residing over the highest prices for offshore wind energy decade which highlights the urgent need for diverse, affordable, reliable, and resilient energy sources.

Nuclear power stations provide that critical alternative, one that is essential to the U.K.'s growing demand for electricity, and cost-effective in a secure manner. Noble Lords can agree on the importance of nuclear energy to energy strategy. Nuclear energy remains a cornerstone for delivering cheap stable and low carbon supply of electricity. It is crucial not only to meeting our ambitious climate commitments, but to safeguard energy security in an increasingly unpredictable world. The reliability of nuclear power divide the study background to the electricity grid.

As such, it is an indispensable part of our efforts to build a resilient energy system. My Lords, we must acknowledge that we do need rigourous planning and regulatory processes. These are already in place for nuclear projects. These processes thoroughly assess health and safety concerns including the risk posed by ionising radiation. While I might not go as far as the mother noble Lords today about wasteful and useless and buys and time regulation, I would certainly save it is duplicated.

And therefore we should not need to do it again, if planning consent has already been granted, and has already assessed those risks stop it is unnecessary complexity and the delay without delivering any meaningful public benefit. Where planning consent has already been obtained, following complaints of scrutiny, it is entirely reasonable to disapply further requirement. Doing so will streamline the development process, produce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and support the timely delivery of timely infrastructure projects that are so central to the U.K.'s energy future.

These reasons we hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 53B would remove the need for nuclear technologies that generate lectures at equal heat for regulatory justification. Regulatory just locations derived from international standards. Its purpose is to ensure that all purposes involving ionising radiation through nuclear technologies must first be assessed technologies must first be assessed to determine whether the individual benefits outweigh the potential benefits outweigh the potential health detriment for the practice. It is a key pillar of protection. It is a key pillar of protection.

That said, I am aware that there are concerns around the process of concerns around the process of justification for nuclear reactors, and that the committee has considered administratively burdensome. I hear that loud and burdensome. I hear that loud and clear. That is why I am pleased that clear. That is why I am pleased that it forms part of the nuclear regulatory Task Force review of nuclear regulation. The government is committed to stripping out ineffective overlapping and unduly ineffective overlapping and unduly burdensome processes, but as we move forward with new nuclear, it is forward with new nuclear, it is vital we maintain high standards of health and environment protection and fulfil our international operations.

The nuclear regulatory Task Force is examining all aspects of nuclear regulation including regulatory justification, environmental permitting, a nuclear licence planning for top we are expected to come forward with recommendations that will streamline regulatory processes and reduce unnecessary burdens. I believe that more effective solutions can be found to improve the process of regulatory justification by including it as the Task Force is doing in a holistic view of the nuclear Guelleh tree framework. Therefore, unfortunately I cannot support this amendment.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Hunt is satisfied with my response. And will withdraw his amendment.
14:30
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
It has been a very interesting debate. I would say to Baroness Bennett, I know that Green Party does not like nuclear. I would point to Germany and a complete mess that Germany is in because of their turning their backs on nuclear. They are then dependent on Russian oil and gas. Geopolitically, Germany is in a very weak position still in a very weak position still My point of view is simple. I am tempting fate when I talk about this, but it will fuel and give power to 6 million homes.

It is low carbon. It is homegrown because although we are reliant on French technology and there is a whole story about this countries disastrous mistake to turn its back on new nuclear for so many years, the fact is that the estimate is that 70% of the Supply Chain Plan you will come from UK companies. In terms of public attitude, we know that, since the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, public opinion has become much more favourable towards new nuclear.

Just on the issues, my noble friend mentioned the generic design assessment which has been a very extensive programme looking at various designs of new nuclear proposals. The noble Lord has talked about the laser beam is built-in, and it was talked about duplication. and it was talked about duplication. If I could just say to the noble Viscount, I think it is worth reading the 2010 EPR justification decision by the then Secretary of State, which I suspect was a LibDem who actually made this Justification Decision.

And I will just read a couple of paragraphs. Basically, its conclusion is that it is justified. Under this regime, the operator would be subject to the same stringent safeguard provisions as existing operators, including any inspection of verification with safeguards inspectorates of European Community. So, the Secretary of State believes that there is no reason to think that building EPR is in the UK would dissolve in any significant rise in proliferation risk from the current low levels. The damage and health detriment with radioactive EPR would have.

Quite right too. But his confidence in the regulatory regime for safety and security. In essence, this process, what happens is that we have to go through hugely expensive lengthy processes only for the sector to say we are satisfied because we have a very strong regulatory system in the UK, which we do. The noble Viscount is absolutely right about this, so I really think that, when we see wasteful regulatory processes, it is of no use at all.

It is a complete waste of time effort. I think we should be very strong on it, but I take my noble friends comment. We should wait for the task force. My plea to him and his department that they take the task force recommendation seriously. And given that, I suspect it will be late autumn given the legislative load that we have at the moment, there is time to amend at report stage and put in place a lot of the recommendations that will come from it.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
14:34
14:36
None Portrait Amendment:53C Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is by leaf withdrawn. In clause 29, amendment 50 3C.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 29, amendment 50 3C. We come to a series of amendments which relates to transport and the which relates to transport and the Department of Transport. If I could begin with a few preliminary marks, the first is to apologise to noble Lords that I didn't speak at second reading on this bill. I wasn't able reading on this bill. I wasn't able to. The second is to thank the Minister and his officials for the engagement and the helpful meetings and briefings that I had in and briefings that I had in preparation for today.

The third preparation for today. The third preliminary remark, the amendments relating to the transport section of relating to the transport section of this act are generally very trivial. The engine for growth, there isn't a The engine for growth, there isn't a great deal of path in it. It is so bold as to repeal a redundant clause in the transport and Works act. For those of us with a tidy mind, that is not a bad thing to do, it will hardly shape up the economy.

Nonetheless, the government's amendments deserve a degree of scrutiny and we should attempt to do that in the course of the next few hours. I turned first of all to amendments relating to clause 29, and to move clause 53 sees standing and to move clause 53 sees standing in my name as to speak to 50 3B, 53, and 50 3F. I should also speak to clause 50 3M to amendment 50 3M, I beg your pardon. Which relates to a later clause in the bill.

What these amendments have in common is that amendments have in common is that they relate to charges. Clause 29 creates a category of person, of legal person known as prescribed authorities. They are not named, and these prescribed authorities are going to be able to charge highways authorities for their services, but the services that they are going to be charging for our not specified either. All of this is to follow in regulation. One can hazard a guess at the type of body that may be a prescribed authority for this purpose which might be national England or the Environment Agency or whatever, but the purpose of the first few amendments is to elicit from the noble Lord who these people actually are.

The second would be to try and establish what range of services they are going to be able to charge for. Whether services that are regarded as routine and freely available are now going to become a charge upon highways authorities. But I would also like to know whether, in setting the charges, they are going to be limited by the very common principle amongst public authorities that charges should only be set so as to cover cost and the taking one year together with another, they do not generate a surplus.

Is that going to be the case in relation to these charges or not, and if not, what limit will be placed on their ability to set those placed on their ability to set those charges? The final question was a slightly detailed question for those involved with local authorities who are also highway authorities, as to whether the payment of these charges should fall upon a parking revenue account and should be drawn from the parking revenue account, or whether they would fall on the general fund.

It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that as well. Turning briefly to 53, amendment 50 3M, this relates to a clause which allows highway authorities to charge applicants, so this is a mirror- image or maybe a passthrough clause. It is not objectionable in itself, but there is again the question whether these charges are going to be set so as to cover costs and so there is not a surplus generated, taking one year with another.

It would be very hopeful if the Minister could answer those
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:43
14:44
14:46
14:48
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the first three amendment seek to ensure that these charged by seek to ensure that these charged by the prescribed bodies under the highways act 19 not excessive. That highways act 19 not excessive. That the level of fees charged do not cause I was authority's financial hardship, and regulations detail hardship, and regulations detail financial mechanisms and arrangement to support highway authorities in to support highway authorities in funding any charges that may be forthcoming in clause 29. I welcome forthcoming in clause 29.

I welcome the noble Lord Moylan, and Lord Grayling rating points relating to Grayling rating points relating to the public purse. The ability of organisations to plan and fund resources accordingly is important resources accordingly is important to the successful implementation of reforming it. Clause 29 is a power reforming it. Clause 29 is a power that allows the secretary of state and Welsh ministers in Wales to make provision for, through regulations, provision for, through regulations, the charging of fees for services provided to support the Highways Act provided to support the Highways Act nine applications.

I would underscore that clause 29 is underscore that clause 29 is intended to only allow scribal needs to charge fees on a cost recovery basis. Its implementation through supporting regulations will not allow them to make a profit. The ability to recover reasonable costs will support the capacity and capability of specified public body. This in turn will encourage timely and high-quality input into the process. As for other infrastructure consenting regimes, the regulations will be used to set up fees must not exceed costs reasonably incurred in providing relevant services.

The clause states that the regulations may make provision in respect of what may or may not be taken into account in calculating the amount charged. This provides a satisfactory basis on which to achieve the intention of the amendment. As part of stakeholder engagement, government rightly engagement, government rightly continue to engage to understand potential financial locations to highways authorities prior to introducing regulations. Taken together the government believes its commitments to produce statutory guidance alongside the regulations will ensure the fees charged by a prescribed body are dealt with only on a recovery basis, and will provide appropriate flexibility in the light of changing circumstances to review and adjust fees when necessary and justified.

In respect of transparency, local authorities are already under a duty to maintain a system of internal audit, and to appoint external auditors to audit their accounts annually. Government departments and Non-Departmental Public Body's in England and are audited by the National Audit Office. The Welsh Government and their Non-Departmental Public Body is in Wales are audited by Audit Wales. The Department allocates capital funding to local highways authorities so they can effectively spend this fund on maintaining and improving their respective network based on local knowledge, circumstance and priorities.

It is therefore for the respective highways authorities to determine how best to spend this funding to fulfil their statutory duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. And other regimes with cost recovery intervals identify that matters identified in the proposed amendments can be satisfactorily addressed with secondary legislation and guidance. And in doing so provide suitable sex ability for the operation of the cost recovery regime in the event of changing circumstances. Turning to amendment 30 3F, the points raised are important and it is the intention, as in other transport consenting regimes and cost recovery, but they will be addressed through secondary legislation.

The regulations will, amongst other things, explain how fees should be calculated, when these can and cannot be charged, as well as specifying which bodies can charge fees. I turned finally to amendment 53M, clause 40 is an enabling power of love the Secretary of State in England and Welsh ministers in Wales to make provision through regulations for the charging of fees for services provided to support Transport and Works Act applications. As with other infrastructure and consenting regimes, where cost recovery principle had been introduced, the regulations will be used to set out that these not exceed the costs reasonably incurred in providing the relevant services.

These regulations will not only detail the bodies that will be able to recover fees, but the basis on which fees should be calculated. Regulations will also consider circumstances in which fees may or may not be charged, and where fees may be waived or reduced. Taken together the government believes its commitment to produce statutory guidance alongside regulations will ensure that fees charged by prescribed bodies and done annually on a cost recovery basis, and provide appropriate flexibility in the light of changing circumstances.

You can adjust these when necessary. Lord Moylan asked who work the prescribed bodies. I am happy to write to him to set out which bodies the government has in mind, an example of the sort of services that might be provided are, for example, providing advice on significant adverse effects on the environment and mitigating those effects, the Enivornment Agency might for example provide advice on surface water flood risk from the new highway and how to mitigate it.

Lord Grayling referred to punitive charges in certain circumstances. Whilst I sympathise greatly with the idea that all public bodies should behave in a timely and proper manner, I'm not entirely sure that punitive charges ought to be set out in an arrangement that just seeks to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the system work better. I was thinking maybe this is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was thinking maybe this is not the right vehicle for this. Most local authorities do not have the local authorities do not have the resource to inspect work carried out by utility companies for example, by utility companies for example, and as a result, the works tend to deteriorate faster than they should. Were there punitive regime in place, to enable a local authority to effectively find additional resource for inspections, it is something in hindsight I wish I had been able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hindsight I wish I had been able to do and wish the current government could do. I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I'm sympathetic to the intervention. I'm sympathetic to the points he raises. He is quite right and he and I both know that on many occasions where works are done badly occasions where works are done badly and don't last long. I think the recovery of inspection charges in order to find that out is quite order to find that out is quite reasonable.

Punitive charges beyond reasonable. Punitive charges beyond those that are levelled for work are not reasonable but I very simply with what the noble Lord is saying, and I see payments and roads almost daily and despair at their condition. I will deal with the noble Lord point on amendment 71 when we get there, even though it is in transit to somewhere else. I will take away the points about run off water that we are debating with the noble Baroness and reflect on the extent to which these are covered by these amendments.

So I thank Lord Moylan for tabling these amendments. I appreciate his interest in these clauses. Whether I asked that he withdraws them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I start by congratulating Lord Liddle on the congratulating Lord Liddle on the deftness with which he developed a debate on charging fees into one debate on charging fees into one about charging electric vehicle. It about charging electric vehicle. It demonstrates the indulgence of your Lordships House that he was able to get away with that for the whole get away with that for the whole length of the speech. But well done is what I would like to say to him.

is what I would like to say to him. In the light of the noble Lords assurances that these genuine assurances that these genuine concerns, not mentioned on the face of the bill, will be dealt with satisfactorily through secondary satisfactorily through secondary legislation, his clear assurances of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Dispatch Box to that end. Would he not still agree it would be much better to have primary be much better to have primary legislation which did police who it is and where it is, and always having to wait for secondary legislation which we know we can't amend, as we discovered only earlier amend, as we discovered only earlier this week. Why can we not have proper primary legislation which we can discuss these things more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sensibly? I could not agree more with my noble friend. I can only say that you can't get blood out of a stone. We are simply not going to get those changes unless we decide to bring the matter back on report and divide the House, which we may do. But at the moment what I wish to say is that I'm certainly satisfied at this stage to withdraw my amendments. But before I do so and sit down, may I simply remind the noble Lord that I did have a question about the general fund and parking revenue account, as a source for paying for these charges imposed on highways authorities.

It would be useful perhaps by way of letter after this debate to have a response to that question. With that I beg to move to withdraw. withdraw.
14:57
14:57
None Portrait Amendment:53G Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-

that are of the opinion say Content. Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 53G Lord Moylan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We come now to a number of amendments that relate to clauses amendments that relate to clauses 30, 31, 32, and 34, and we shall return to clause 33 in the ensuing return to clause 33 in the ensuing group. They are a bit of a ragbag because this part of the bill is because this part of the bill is something of a ragbag. I group them together because, although they are relatively trivial clauses, they do deserve some level of exploration.

deserve some level of exploration. Amendment 53G relates to clause 30, and it is to do with the power be given to the highways authority in relation to trunk roads. This designation at the moment has to be carried out by Statutory Instrument. carried out by Statutory Instrument. Contrary to advice I suspect will be offered by my noble friend if he was still in his place, the government still in his place, the government wishes to transfer that power to Highways England. One can see this Highways England.

One can see this is not a constitutional point on which to go to the stage I have to grant. But we are asking in this amendment that they be required to undertake proper consultation with neighbouring authorities, both highways authorities, planning authorities, and local authorities insofar as they are not the same body. I would hope that the Minister would be able to agree to that. In clause 31, I have to admit amendment 53H is a bit River Tees. This is an amendment where the Department for transport, pressed to find something that you put into this bill, have gone so far as to say, wouldn't it be a nice idea to standardise notice periods so that instead of having six weeks on the Transport and Works Act, we move it to 30 days? Anything about that, if you turn to the Explanatory Notes, the example of standardisation given is that planning act, where it says the notice period is 28 days.

So I'm trying to be helpful to the government here in correcting 30 days. And changing it to 28 days so it is compliant with the Explanatory Notes government has itself produced. What the government simply being inattentive? And how much time should be spent debating this I wonder? If I turn now to amendment 53I, which relates to clause 30, 53I, which relates to clause 30, clause 30 relates to clause 32, 33, sorry, 34, this raises, my amendment raises a similar concern of that which I raised in relation to clause 30.

But that clause dispenses with the need for a Statutory Instrument in confirming certain schemes. Again, the question here is whether the Secretary of State should be taking those powers to themselves and away from Parliament. But the amendment is much more honest. The Secretary of State is obliged to publish confirmation of an order of scheme when he makes that confirmation but it does not actually say what deadline he has to meet when he does make that confirmation before he actually issues the publication.

We are suggesting he or she should have to do so within seven days. We think that is one that should be done. Turning to clause 34, this changes the Transport and Works Act. It is our first clause that relates to Transport and Works Act in this section. Again, modern provisions are provided at the moment by Statutory Instrument. And again, the government is taking that power away and giving it to ministers. Is that really necessary? Would it not be better for Parliament out of respect for Parliament to leave it with the Statutory Instrument process they can at least be scrutinised and debated when they are changed rather than simply made by ministers and objected to afterwards? I beg to
15:02
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees.
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

A moment proposed, insert the
15:02
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

A moment proposed, insert the words on the marshalled list. 53, G.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will turn to amendment 53, G but before I do I will reflect on the noble Lord Moylan 's point from the noble Lord Moylan 's point from the end of the last group and I will of course write to him about the question general versus highway fund. And he reflected on the noble fund. And he reflected on the noble Lord little's deafness in turning Lord little's deafness in turning Lord little's deafness in turning his amendment because he was travelling on Avante on Thursday afternoon.

Amendment 53, lethargy seeks to undertake a 12 week consultation with neighbouring consultation with neighbouring highway authorities, local planning authorities and relevant combined authorities and relevant combined mayoral authorities before making trunk road designation orders. I welcome the reasoning behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and existing legislation itself was and existing legislation itself was notably schedule one of the Highways Act 1980 set out consultation Act 1980 set out consultation requirements in respect of every council in whose area the proposed council in whose area the proposed highway order relates.

The proposed amendment for the noble Lord could introduce additional unnecessary ministry to on those neighbouring local authorities which are not directly affected by the order but would necessarily be directly consulted by National Highways. Mandating engagement risks diverting resources away from the core task of delivering vital infrastructure and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could lead to delays. Furthermore... Is a genius argument on the part of the Minister but I have never of the Minister but I have never come across and MAC he has never come across a consultation which mandates a response from Constantine who has nothing to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will differ slightly on the interpretation, I'm not sure... I think I agree with him but in any think I agree with him but in any event, furthermore imposing a 12 event, furthermore imposing a 12 week minimum consultation period will introduce rigidity that would have the consequences significantly have the consequences significantly slowing down the delivery of transport infrastructure projects. It would be contrary to the purpose It would be contrary to the purpose of clause 31 of the bill which is designed to make consultation more efficient while maintaining necessary safeguards.

I will turn to necessary safeguards. I will turn to amendment 53, H, tabled by the noble Lord Lord modern which proposes to Lord Lord modern which proposes to amend the notice period from 30 days amend the notice period from 30 days to 28 days. He did not detain as long as neither would I, the purpose of this is to reduce it from six weeks, I note that his comparison with the Planning Act, the government's proposal of 30 days government's proposal of 30 days seems to the government to strike a good balance in this respect and that is where we would propose to that is where we would propose to leave the matter.

Amendment 53, I, seeks to write into primary legislation the Secretary of State must publish the notice of making highway order and the confirmation of the Irish scheme within seven days along with the related documentation. Currently notices are dated on the day they are published, the amendment would not have the effect of speeding up that part of the process. I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in this clause and the intentions behind the amendments tabled. But I kindly ask the noble Lord to book leave to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 34, and that notice given by the noble Lord to postal study for from stand part of the bill is an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh ministers in Wales the power to move modern clauses the power to move modern clauses To make the Transport and To make the Transport and Works To make the Transport and Works Act more efficient for applicants. The model clauses are intended to streamline the delivery of transport and works at orders and set out standardised provisions for applicants and other stakeholders to consider in the preparation of applications.

They can currently can only be amended through secondary so moving them into guidance will allow these helpful guiding provisions to be updated on a more responsive basis via a more efficient process. This supports the bill's name of superfine and streamlining transport laws ensuring we have a more efficient framework moving forward, and I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lord did much
15:07
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
less well that time around than he did on the previous debate, at least on the previous debate he said that the issues that I had raised would be dealt with one way or another and second religious. Here he is moving second religious. Here he is moving into government blank wall approach, nothing can be changed, nonetheless, given that relative triviality of this part of the bill, and the fact it gives, does nothing whatsoever to promote growth, but tidies up a few things here and there, from the bottom of the bureaucrats I'm happy to beg leave to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 30 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 31, contents have it. In clause 31, amendment 53, H. Not moved. Question is that clause 31 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 32, Amendment 53, I, Lord In clause 32, Amendment 53, I, Lord Moylan, not move. The question is that clause 32 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We now have a manuscript amendment We now have a manuscript amendment in the supplementary sheet, 53, one, in the supplementary sheet, 53, one, A.

53, I, A. Lord Moylan. A. 53, I, A. Lord Moylan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. 53, I, A. Lord Moylan. My Lords, I beg to leave to move the manuscript amendment standing in the manuscript amendment standing in my name. I apologise that this amendment, which started life some time ago, got lost somewhere in the system and this was only identified yesterday, so it was re-tabled as a manuscript amendment. But the noble Lord has been aware for some time that the area is an area of concern. It is, I think, the first substantial of concern.

The setup my substantial of concern. The setup my store immediately as a conservative, who believes in the rights of private property. And that consequently the government has power to undertake compulsory purchase should be constrained to occasions when it is absolutely necessary. What this clause appears to do is to create a new type of compulsory purchase order altogether. And it's entirely open to the noble Lord the Minister to correct me in all of this because I'm not planning property lawyer but it purpose to create something that is effectively temporary compulsory purchase order and we have never heard of such a thing or stop we
15:11
None Portrait Amendment: 53IA Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-

have heard of the temporary act position compulsorily of certain position compulsorily of certain rights and usages across land that may be necessary for the purposes of may be necessary for the purposes of construction on an adjacent site. Way leaves, for example, may be acquired compulsorily. This clause talks about the possession and talks about the possession and acquisition of the land, and that seems to me to go considerably seems to me to go considerably beyond what exists at the moment, unless, as I say, the noble Lord can unless, as I say, the noble Lord can correct me.

And if I turn to the clause in the bill, it's actually very hard to find because all of very hard to find because all of this, and it's on page 48 at the bottom, is encompassed in five lines bottom, is encompassed in five lines of text. So what I regard as potentially a very significant potentially a very significant change, noting in my view a bill of change, noting in my view a bill of its own, -- meriting a bill of its own, a bill that has the words compulsory purchase order short compulsory purchase order short title of the bill, is possibly potentially, and I'm not saying potentially, and I'm not saying deliberately, being slipped through in a way that would hardly be noticed at the bottom of a page in the bill that is about something in the face of it that is very, very different.

My amendment does not seek to set this aside, because it is possible that the noble Lord the Minister can correct me and explained that all he is doing is building on well established precedents, which he will be able to site. My amendment is simply to say that any order creating such a compulsion, any compulsory purchase order, must specify the manner in which the compensation is to be paid. Normally, compulsory purchase order, there is one payment and you pay to acquire the site, the land of the building.

If you are doing it temporarily, what are you paying? Are you paying a former friend? Or are you paying a price, together with a fixed repurchase price at the end of a defined period? None of this is known. Then we come to this question of period, the second thing that my amendment would require is that when such an order is made, it should specify the period. Otherwise, what is to stop temporary becoming permanent? And for what purpose? If it is temporarily needed for a certain purpose, could it become permanent and used for different purpose? If you temporarily need access to a field in order to put Portakabins in it, next to a construction site, could it somehow slipped into being permanently acquired for development by the government itself? And on what basis then would the recompense have been decided, would that have been valid recompense? Asking these questions through the amendment is, I think, more valuable than simply trying to slap it down completely, especially as I don't claim to be 100% sure of my ground but I do think this is potentially quite dangerous clause, and one which the government is going to have to justify very thoroughly if it is to stand, as it does, as part of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill at the moment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 33, H,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 33, H, 49, line 1, at end inserted the 49, line 1, at end inserted the words printed on the manuscript
15:14
15:15
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
job equally or similarly well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment seeks to provide safeguards on the face of legislation to implement powers of temporal possession under the temporal possession under the Highways Act 1980. The Highways Act Highways Act 1980. The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering a compulsory acquisition of land and rights in an overland, land and rights in an overland, clause 33 would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise that those powers can also authorise that those powers can also authorise We are introducing this power because currently there is no mechanism for the use of land and mechanism for the use of land and where land is only required on a temporary basis, if access to such land cannot be achieved by agreement with the landowners, the Highways Authority will seek power for a compulsory acquisition to use the land and these powers are disproportionate to the needs of the disproportionate to the needs of the Highways Authority you will need to access it temporarily.

This will be a more proportionate route and will aid negotiations and provide little protection for landowners on protection for landowners on regaining their land. The noble Lord raised the question of the raised the question of the definition of 'temporary', which is not in the legislation and means lasting not a permanent amount of time and this is passed onto the land are open considering the nature of the powers. He is right that this power would not always be used.

If the land could be temporarily used in another way, the relevant public authority would, of course, use that instead. The noble Lord Moylan raises some good points in respect to compulsory acquisition of land and rights over this land and these are embedded in the existing mechanism and it underpins not only the Highways Act of 1980 but other infrastructure, for example, land compensation is calculated in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961 under legislation sets out the mechanism under which it might be calculated and gives a dispute mechanism for seeking resolution.

Guidance exists to support these established mechanisms and the Highways Act of 1980 has a well funded mechanism for a consideration of compulsory acquisition rates. Because with document this -- the clause would not amend this but it would give powers to permanently acquire land.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I briefly ask, the noble Lord would surely agree the provisions do would surely agree the provisions do not cover one of the questions that must arise in the case of temporary must arise in the case of temporary possession of land which is the condition in which you are obliged condition in which you are obliged to return it and since the permanent acquisition of land by compulsory acquisition of land by compulsory purchase does not include for it to be returned, there would be any provisions to cover that part is must be another issue - in what must be another issue - in what condition are you required to return it? That is also addressed in one of it? That is also addressed in one of my amendments.

You cannot claim this my amendments. You cannot claim this covers all of that, surely? Speak I thank him for his intervention and since he asked the question, I will write to him about how the condition write to him about how the condition of returning the land is going to be dealt with through this amendment dealt with through this amendment but in the meantime, I would kindly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but in the meantime, I would kindly ask him to beg leave to withdraw his amendment. I'm sorry to interrupt but on that particular point, section 252 of the Highways Act allows counter notice from somebody where rights over land have been required in a compulsory fashion to put forward a counter notice to have the interest in the land purchased and I wonder if when thinking about this issue, the government might consider whether the temporary possession of land might also reasonably give rise to opportunity for a landowner to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seek the land is acquired on a permanent basis. I thank the noble Lord for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for that point and he makes a very valid point and I will go away and consider that and I thank him for
15:20
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
consider that and I thank him for raising that. I also ask Lord Moylan

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to beg leave to withdraw his amendment. I regret to say that the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I regret to say that the Minister has confirmed my worst fears about this clause. That was that they created entirely new and unprecedented and that he is doing so with properly safeguarded and the so with properly safeguarded and the piece of legislation would invite appropriate scrutiny but rather in a appropriate scrutiny but rather in a short clause in a bill that appears to be about something else. He appears to be saying that but I have appears to be saying that but I have a suspicion that something else might be going on from what he has might be going on from what he has said and that is simply that you have drafted this have got muddled about the difference between about the difference between acquiring rights over land such as acquiring rights over land such as leave and so for us and necessary for construction and actually acquiring the land itself.

Indeed, it is notable that in his response, it is notable that in his response, he gave no reason as to why, and no examples as to why it should be examples as to why it should be necessary to acquire the land outright rather than to use the existing provisions that are available to those who can exercise compulsory purchase powers. In all candour and friendliness I would suggest to the noble Lord that you carefully consider if this clause is necessary and if it actually achieves what it was intended to in the first place or goes way beyond it and it is the case that if an amendment is not tabled by the government at the next stage consideration of the bill, then it will become the subject of a very significant and lengthy debate as a result of the amendments tabled by the bill.

In the meantime, I would be grateful for permission to withdraw my amendment.
15:22
15:23
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
contrary, say, "Not content." The contents have it. Lord Moylan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this... We are back on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this... We are back on the Transport and Works Act in this the Transport and Works Act in this amendment, or the clauses we are dealing with, this particular clause, relates to the holding of an clause, relates to the holding of an inquiry when Transport and Works Act inquiry when Transport and Works Act powers are used. I'm sure noble Lord know this but it is worth reminding know this but it is worth reminding them, for major construction works, there are three available methods getting permission and one is getting permission and one is planning permission from the local planning permission from the local authority and one is to go for a development consent order and that has been the case since 2008.

For has been the case since 2008. For some time before that, and there's also a hybrid, but also the also a hybrid, but also the intermediate thing of getting a Transport Works Act Order under that Transport Works Act Order under that statute and one will inevitably impinge upon the rights of others, the property rights of others, and the property rights of others, and the possibility of having objectors and the possibility of holding inquires to examine those must arise and that is the part of this that we are dealing with, the part of the Transport and Works Act that we are dealing with.

Two things are going on as far as I can make out. One is that it is currently the case that if somebody wishes to raise... If somebody raises an objection, the Secretary of State may hold an inquiry or appoint somebody to hear the objection. However, they don't have to appoint someone to hear that objector, if the Secretary of State considers the objection is frivolous or trivial. And so there is a seriousness to this. This is before the Secretary of State is obliged to respond by hearing it or opening an inquiry.

One thing happening in the bill is that the seriousness test is being changed so that now has to be something considered serious enough by the Secretary of State and no by the Secretary of State and no longer the very low bar of trivial, of frivolous and trivial, which is quite understood in legal circles and it becomes testable, to some extent, objectively, and becomes a subjective test on the part of the Secretary of State as to whether it is serious enough.

Serious enough for what? No definition is offered. It moves the balance of power away from the citizen and in favour of the promoter. This comes in a way that deserves inquiry. That is what these amendments are intended to highlight and invade the government to comment on but in addition there is the question of whether the government has to hold an inquiry or appoint a person and, at the moment, in the Transport and Works Act, they can do so but with the rising of the seriousness test, if that was left out on one hand, if someone passes this test, it should be that they must hold an inquiry on behalf of the Secretary of State.

If it is admitted it is serious enough, it must follow that an inquiry should take place or healing should take place and I'm trying again, not unhelpfully, if we're going to have different balance, let's try to get the right balance and it would be worth hearing what the Minister has in mind and if there is any give on his part and, finally, I turned to my amendment and this relates to, as far as I can make out, to be a new power of inspectors, these were transport and Works act inquires and an inspector to impose the cast on those who appear and at least in the planning round, with which I'm more
15:29
15:29
15:30
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
This is not just something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is not just something happening in this bill. It is happening in the well-being and schools bill and the government is schools bill and the government is looking at under what conditions the parent is allowed to complain about parent is allowed to complain about treatment by a local authority. This seems to be a general move to seems to be a general move to restrict individuals' access to restrict individuals' access to setting something right when they feel that they have been hard done feel that they have been hard done by by the state and making it quite by by the state and making it quite difficult in the case of the Children's Well-Being and Skills, there are no criteria set out and there are no criteria set out and the Secretary of State can't do it the Secretary of State can't do it in the bin without doing anything and I hope we can change that but it and I hope we can change that but it is a big change in attitude and and are interested to know what is going are interested to know what is going on with the government in that it wants to change the relationship between the state and the citizen in between the state and the citizen in that way.

It seems to me to be important that we should focus on giving individuals right to stand against the state when they have against the state when they have I can understand within the margin of, allowable margin on these things, wanting to tighten up on the current wording. But in all my noble friends amendments, I think he's pointing out really important changes that need to be made to this bill and need to be reflected in the government's thinking generally.

A citizen who has a reasonable complaint against the way they have been treated by the government should be given a hearing. And taking it away in the way this builders is not something we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Moylan for setting the noble Lord Moylan for setting out so succinctly what the choices are for the routes by which are for the routes by which infrastructure projects might be infrastructure projects might be pursued. And I also would say to him that the objective of the whole of the planning Infrastructure bill is the planning Infrastructure bill is to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for infrastructure, because a failure to build enough infrastructure is constraining economic growth and threatening the economy climate threatening the economy climate targets and energy security.

So targets and energy security. So there's a strong purpose in this whole suite of amendments and in
15:33
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
whole suite of amendments and in this particular case, it's not intended to withdraw the right for individual citizens to take action but it is designed to achieve dealing with objectives, objections to transport infrastructure projects more purportedly forced sometimes those runners are -- sometimes those will necessitate the need for public enquiry. All objections will continue to be decided entirely on the merits of the argument put forward. So doesn't mean less scrutiny but it is designed to speed up the transport and works process.

Currently, if an objection is better than frivolous or trivial is raised, that is an effective local authority landowner, a public enquiry or hearing must be held. This is the case even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. This can result in a costly and lengthy public enquiry taking place, even where objection lacks merit. Instead its Is only held when an objection from a statutory objector is considered to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and costs for applicants and objectors but a proportionate objection process will still remain, ensuring that objections are given due attention and decisions indicated to all parties stop with regard to amendment 53, K, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government... Very kind of him to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very kind of him to give way. What does that noble Lord understand and what should noble Lords and members of the public understand by members of the public understand by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the term serious enough? We have to get ourselves into a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have to get ourselves into a position where it's possible to get schemes to move forward. Based on a schemes to move forward. Based on a consideration about what the objections are and whether they can be dealt with by means other than a be dealt with by means other than a public enquiry. I think it is evident how the processes work at evident how the processes work at the moment, but delays can and are the moment, but delays can and are being incurred, and actually of course the definition needs to be course the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course.

But what fleshed out in due course. But what the bill is trying to do, what the bill is seeking to do, is to actually streamline the whole actually streamline the whole process by introducing another bar process by introducing another bar into the process, serious enough to merit such treatment is the definition the government has chosen to define what that is. With regard to amendment 53, K,, considers procedural matters like providing written decisions for a decision on whether the two hold public enquiry, are best dealt with in the guidance of secondary legislation, reducing the current unnecessary bureaucracy or disproportionate process, this clause will help support a faster transport consenting process.

I will turn to amendment 53, L, tabled by the noble Lord would propose an amendment to ensure costs may only be imposed on the person and that person has acted maliciously or unreasonably during a public enquiry process. Clause 37 introduces a new power to the Transport and Works Act and inspecting conducting the public enquiry to make decisions in relevant cost claims rather than a decision by the Secretary of State as is currently required stop the Department of transport circular 304 which governs our claims enquiries or handles makes it exquisitely clear what constitutes unreasonable behaviour and the circumstances in which it can be applied.

Guidance of this type is also used for planning and 2008 regime, and appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspectors conducting inquiries on Transport and Works Act applications will continue to apply the circular when considering costs. The intent of the proposed amendment is achieved existing means. I thank the noble Lord for the amendment he has tabled today in the grouping, but for the reasons outlined I would ask that he withdraw them.
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:41
15:41
15:41
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 38 Stand Part. Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-

has to say on the points I would like to make. What the clause does like to make. What the clause does is allow the Secretary of State to is allow the Secretary of State to set a deadline for enquiries to be conducted and concluded. It is a flexible deadline and that the Secretary of State can as I understand clause, subsequently amended the deadline and extended so amended the deadline and extended so it can be made up longer. With the it can be made up longer.

With the purpose of trying to speed up consent, that may appear on the face consent, that may appear on the face of it to be a very sensible measure but I just want to draw a lesson from history here. And that is to go back to 2008 and the planning which back to 2008 and the planning which introduced the development consent order. One of the features of the development consent order was that development consent order was that the enquiry phase was going to be very limited it was going to be six months by statute unless it was extended.

So exact the same approach was used all the way back in 2008 in relation to DCO's. Has that resulted in DCO's being shorter process? No it has not. What it has effectively done is required all the work preparatory to the enquiry to be frontloaded and carried out and presented to the inspectors before the inspectors will agree to open the inquiry because until they open it, the clock does not start running so the six month limit does not apply.

And so in effect this approach has failed, it's failed in relation to disease. In fact it could be argued that it has made DCO's a method of acquiring permission, then a transport and works order currently is. Because in order to get to the point where the inspectors are willing to start the inquiry, one has to produce every conceivable document they might require resulting in sometimes hundreds of thousands of pages, having to be produced in order to get an inquiry started.

Whereas under the old system, using Planning under the old system, using Planning Act was, where documents can be pulled in later on, although the overall process lasted quite some time, it didn't require quite as much paper as is currently required by the DCO process. So I offer that lesson from history as, not even history because we are living with DCO's today, I offer that as a cautionary tale and I wonder to what extent the Minister has taken account of that and isn't in fact doing something here which is seductively attractive and would achieve something we would all like to see.

But in practice is going to start the whole process. I beg to
15:43
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

move. -- In practice is going to slow up the whole process. I beg to move.
15:43
15:45
15:47
None Portrait Amendment:54 Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been quite a long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been quite a long afternoon, hasn't it? I meant 54 in my name and that of my noble friend, my name and that of my noble friend, which were tabled some time ago and so everyone has had time to think so everyone has had time to think about it and the consequences of what we are raising in this what we are raising in this amendment. It is focused on the amendment. It is focused on the potential for significant harm to listed buildings, ancient monuments, archaeological sites and to prevent any ill considered harm caused by any ill considered harm caused by the measures in the clause.

Clause the measures in the clause. Clause 41 refers to section 17 of the transport and Works act 1992, of transport and Works act 1992, of which we have heard a lot in the last hour. It relates to applications for listed building consent in England and Wales where planned transport development such planned transport development such as railway will involve the as railway will involve the demolition in whole or in part of the building are a site with statutory protection.

Under this regime, the application for listed building are other consent is referred directly to the Secretary of State. This is instead of an application to the local planning authority. Clause 41 amends planning for the act of 1990 the act of 1991 planning and conservation so the authorisations relating to heritage authorisations relating to heritage protection are no longer required. This includes listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled monument consent, and notifications for works in areas of archaeological importance.

The process, if clause 41 is agreed to, will mean that applicants can obtain all necessary consent including those through the Transport and Works Act process, rather than needing to apply separately to different bodies. This is part of the so-called streamlining of planning application processes. The consequences are that a one-stop shop approach such as this will result in local heritage structures that are a source of local pride being bulldozed from the local landscape.

Many heritage organisations, Historic England, Heritage Alliance, have expressed concerns that this application of separate consent could weaken the checks and balances which are designed to protect historic assets. By applying clause 41 in this way, it might have a knock-on effect of watering down the well-understood protections of heritage and lead to more requests for reducing enforcement and statutory detections. Another major problem with this wholesale reduction is that there is no prioritisation of the value of different historic assets.

Will he trains well be regarded as having protection if there is an application by rail or road into the North of the nation? Adrian is well is a World Heritage Site with substantial protection but under changes in this House would be treated the same as other less- important but still vital heritage assets. As the powers provided under clause 41 are discretionary, inconsistencies can creep in and cause greater local and national outrage. He drains well and is protected but a local monument that is valued by the local community can be swept aside.

What this measure does is undermine two essential elements of planning, as far as this bill is concerned. The first is of engaging with communities. This means they have the full fact and could have their say. The second is the scales are tipped excessively in favour of development proposals to the detriment of this. An approach like this gives a green light to less scrupulous developers who would gain by destroying historic assets.

Heritage is an important part of who Heritage is an important part of who we are. It has to be more carefully considered in the balance than is proposed in clause 41. I look
15:52
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to the amendment and a back to move. The amendment proposed is clause
15:52
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed is clause 41, Lane 52, and to insert the words listed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listed. Am glad to speak to my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am glad to speak to my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am glad to speak to my amendment 55 and this is in support of 54 and 55 and this is in support of 54 and as the title describes, it divides for heritage regimes and either clear and interest as the owner of a clear and interest as the owner of a -- and I am on the committee. As noble Lord would expect, my views are that of my own and not of members of the organisation I have listed.

I thank the National trust and the Heritage Alliance for the briefing. The clause would provide an alternative to applicant having to apply separately to each relevant consenting authority. The consenting authority is are in terms of listed buildings consent and conservation areas and the Secretary of State is looking at this in terms of monument consent. If I may, I will explain how it is expected to work. The clause replaces Section 17 and that section has exerted a new section into the planning act of 1990 which enabled the process to be referred to the Secretary of State where it forms part of an application for this under sections 1 or three of this under sections 1 or three of the act.

Section 3 is waterways. This is a section 6 application under the transport and Works act and the assimilation of the application for consent for listed buildings into a concurrent application is provided for in the application and conservation areas and ancient monuments procedures regulations of 1992. Clause 41 goes on to note section 12.3A anti-Welsh legislation and goes on in subclause four about section 12.3A continuing in force. This means that if listed buildings and other heritage consents are required, they can continue to be included in the section 6 application and in consequence with 12.3A would be referred to the Secretary of State.

It raises the question, why is clause 41 needed? My point is simple. It is already possible not simple. It is already possible not to send and they can be assimilated in a concurrent application which goes for section 1 or section 3. The purpose is more substantial and significant and the new section 17 means where an order is made that would require heritage consent, but is done away with and as a consequence this attaches conditions to the consenting process and they are also done away with.

That is why I tabled the amendment and I'm grateful to my noble friend and the key reference of the operative point is the reference to section 7 of the Planning Listed Buildings Act of 1990 which prohibits the demolition of a listed building and the extension in any manner which would affect character as a building of special architectural or historic interest unless the work is authorised. There will be similar provision in so far as.

Amendment 54 is in the name of the noble Lady and she has moved it and it rightly highlights that the making of the transport of work order may involve the demolition of our impact on listed buildings and ancient monuments, without any requirement for consent. So, when such an order is being made, where is the advice from Historic England? Where are the statutory guardrails around preservation of the heritage and the setting? Where are, at the very least, they must have regard to provisions with relation to heritage including the issues, all of which are set out in the amendment by Baroness Pinnock.

I look to the administrative move the debate to tell us where the safeguards are. On the face of it, they would no longer apply. Given the scope already available to bring them together in a single section 6 application, why is it necessary to the safeguards for heritage assets? In the absence of reassurances, which do not appear to be in the clause itself, or any existing legislation I can find, and I have to say I hope that those protections can be inserted into the bill at report.

bill at report.
15:59
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My noble friend says and I have signed to amendment 55 and I'm broadly supportive of 54 which broadly supportive of 54 which stands in my name and I thank you noble Lady for the way she's opened the debate on this important set of amendments. My noble friend has said up the concerns many of us have about the clause in the bill and the potential consequences and is amendment seeks to remedy that by making sure the provisions can continue to be applied and clause 41 this applies protections for scheduled monuments and that is why I've tabled my amendment questioning whether it should be part of the bill at all and my noble friend asked the same question.

Like him and others, I discussed these and others, I discussed these amendments and these clauses and as the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock outline, clause 41 would sweep away the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent, and notices for work on land for projects carried out under the terms of the Transport to Work Act 1992 and it makes the distinction between protected sites and she raised horrifying prospect for me, from Northumbria, of Hadrian as well, which is not just scheduled but a UNESCO site as well.

I the present government takes a different view to the previous one on other world Heritage sites including Stonehenge and the suggested changes to the A303 there. I'm sure the noble Lord and his colleagues would share our belief in the importance of the protections and allow people to raise concerns about the scheme Asset out in the Delegated Powers Memorandum's, the intention is that Memorandum's, the intention is that an order under the transport and would be more of a one-stop shop encompassing the majority of approvals required to deliver a project.

This clause would enable those orders to disapply the need to obtain authorisations under the relevant heritage regimes rather than asking an applicant to apply separately but as my noble friend Lord Lansley says that is not necessarily the case at present. I can see some benefits, if the purpose here is solely streamlining, if you take a heritage organisation like heritage railway, it could reduce the bureaucracy that they see when they want to make changes to the site that they protect and for which they are the custodians.

But many heritage organisations have raised very serious concerns about the potential consequences of this clause as it's drafted and share the concerns my noble friend has set out about the motivations or certainly the consequences of this clause. Because the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to disapply legislative protections relating to heritage and we have not had the clarity that we need about how and when this discussion would be applied. During committee stage, in another place, my honourable friends David Simmonds MP asked for that clarity and for some escalation of the circumstances in which this discussion exercise.

He pointed out that significant instructed of elements are very close to heritage buildings and other historic sites which, where there will be legitimate expectation both from local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken. And as Mr Simmons noted there are many glittering examples of formally industrial buildings, particularly those connected with Victorian transport networks being reused for residential residents or new users, that's a great part of heritage breathing new life into our buildings. It is also far better, both for the environment and for their pride and identity of local communities than simply demolishing these buildings and clearing the sides and losing that part of our shared heritage.

As heritage minister in the last government I had the pleasure of seeing many such examples and joining enterprising organisations like the art company and the Railway Heritage trust in products such as the old stationmaster's house at Denmark Hill in Camberwell. That grade 2 listed building, designed by the leading Victorian railway architect Charles Henry drive in the 1860s, was damaged by a fire in 1980 along with the rest of the session. Most of the building was restored including what is now the renamed Phoenix public house, it rose from the ashes.

With brilliant support from the Campbell society. The former stationmaster's house lay derelict for 43 years and was put in the at-risk register and now I'm glad to say after £320,000 refurbishment including a £44,000 grant from the Railway Heritage trust it is a thriving coffeeshop and serving delicious pastries. So I'm glad that these issues were proved when the bill was examined in committee another place, under questioning from my honourable friend David Simmonds and from Gideon Amos, the LibDem MP, Minister in another place said " it is not the intention of the clause to weaken heritage protection safeguards".

It's good to hear that. But words in Hansard do not give the assurances that those who care about heritage would like to see, that those protections and safeguards are not being eroded here, even unwittingly. When the bill was published the National Trust said they had serious concerns about the scope of this clause, they said there is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the bill.

Even the government's own statutory advises on heritage protection Historic England have said " whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted, there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discussion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency which would undermine the policy intention. The disaggregation of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments as exists at present ".

They concluded that "the current wording of the clause may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining cunning decisions whilst having the unintended of reducing heritage protection". In the face of these very stark warnings from heritage bodies, and in the face of the questions raised in another place, the Minister said he would go away and seriously think about how the government can provide further clarity and reassurance on this point. Sadly no further clarity of assurance was given before the bill left another place and Co Lordship's House so I hope the noble Lord the Minister and set out today some of the fruits of the thinking that his colleagues and others have done since then.

Because until we have that clarity and reassurance, many heritage bodies and very many people who cherish the buildings and infrastructure that we have inherited from our forebears, will continue to have significant concerns about the potential of clause 41 to cause confusion and misunderstanding at best, or forward, unintended harm to our shared heritage. I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister can sit out a bit more clearly why the government feels this provision is needed and what the perceived problem is that it seeks to address.

I would be keen to hear what the intended scale and scope of this provision is and I would like to hear reassurances that they will not be watering down of protections for heritage as a result, as well as reassurances that heritage considerations will be weighed appropriately when the relevant Secretary of State is considering whether it's in the public interest to make an order. I would also be grateful to know the guidance will be forthcoming to help clarify this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process for all relevant parties. I rise briefly to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group. And in doing so I declare my interest as the owner of a listed building and also thinking heritage alliance for also thinking heritage alliance for their briefings. The noble Lords have already much more eloquently than I could put the problem of this clause to this House. And I also highlighted exactly the same quotes highlighted exactly the same quotes as the noble Lord Lord Parkinson from the Commons committee stage, perhaps also alongside the sentence when he said the Minister another when he said the Minister another place said, we particularly want to ensure better process with those bodies consulted and their concerns bodies consulted and their concerns addressed.

It's not at all clear to me where in this clause and all of the changes it makes those bodies the changes it makes those bodies concerned with heritage are going to be consulted and their concerns addressed, so I would just like to addressed, so I would just like to add my voice to those who have serious concerns with clause 41 in this bill.
16:08
16:10
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
dissected this clause and demonstrated that it is to use a demonstrated that it is to use a technical term, a right mess. I want to reflect on Sheffield, Manor Castle is in Sheffield for those who don't know, which is a city which has suffered enormously from the destruction of heritage, both industrial and earlier heritage. I thought I would take your Lordships thought I would take your Lordships on this last day to August 1644, a on this last day to August 1644, a 10 day siege of Sheffield Castle.

The castle was held by the Royalists, received by the parliamentarians, and this place parliamentarians, and this place ordered the castle destroyed. Then to add insult to industry in the interval period they built the castle on top of it, which has now castle on top of it, which has now been demolished and now they are doing archaeology on it. The end point of this is a story just from point of this is a story just from the last few months where archaeologists have uncovered a word I have just learnt, Abbott eases which are sharpened branches which which are sharpened branches which were put around the ditch by the were put around the ditch by the defendant -- defenders in attempt to hold them off.

This is a city uncovering a really important, uncovering a really important, exciting piece of its past, accurately survived against all of the odds but how important discoveries like that are to cities identities, how much local heritage is so important to an identity of a place, and we cannot allow, as the noble Lady Baroness Pinnock set out, a centralisation, taking away of local control that might see us lose stories like that.
16:10
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
As we have heard, this bill stands to disapply heritage regimes for transport infrastructure for transport infrastructure for transport infrastructure This could harm heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than properly the stated ambition of the bill. And therefore I'm delighted to support Amendment 54 in the name of Baroness Pinnock who has outlined technical issues, as has Lord Lansley in talking about his amendment. We all understand building transport infrastructure is important to our economic growth and in particular new public transport is important to support people, moving away from cars where it is possible.

However, we have got to make sure that in building faster, and more efficiently, we don't lose critical heritage. That is why I think this amendment and this debate is so important because it's flagging the importance to recognise our architectural and archaeological heritage and to conserve the Historic Environment Record alongside the need for new infrastructure and it seems to me that it's a practical approach, and I would urge the government to support this small but in some way significantly important change. As we have already heard, in the Commons, at committee stage, the Minister acknowledged, understand, that these changes could have unintended and absolutely committed to respond to concerns raised by Gideon Amos MP as we have heard, I report stage and yet nothing was forthcoming -- bite report stage.

No further comments were made in clause 41 during the debate. So I really await the response from the noble Lord the Minister to this important topic about our heritage assets and to answer the many important questions that have been raised today.
16:12
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I shall be brief after a very valuable debate. I just want to make it clear that the opposition frontbench is fully behind the amendments in the name of noble Baroness Lady Pinnock and my noble friend and there's nothing I'm going to seek to add on the detail of the amendments which have been so eloquently argued by both of them. I will just add one retraction of my own. I think it is very easy to imagine that listed buildings consent and planning applications are all much of the same thing because they are usually dealt with by the same officers in the same local authority, but they are not.

They are two very distinct legal regimes and they have two very distinct bases. Planning is essentially about mitigating and shaping the externalities of development, so as to minimise public harm and perhaps achieve some public good. But it's to do with utility. Whereas listed buildings, listed building the station is about listed building the station is about a test of absolute value. -- Listed building legislation. Either a building is listed and therefore is to be preserved implicitly for ever, or it is not.

Now of course, there are grades of listing and of course it is possible to delist a building so there is a bit of movement around the edges but essentially it is not a test of utility, is this something useful, it is a test of value. And for the government to mix up these two, to mash them together, is to ignore that very important distinction. The listed building regime is not part of a trade-off as a consequence of that.

You do not say, because we can achieve something useful on the one hand, the faster railway, a shorter route, whatever it might be, therefore there is a calculus by which we can demolish so many listed buildings to achieve that. They are not commensurate regimes and the government would do well to withdraw this section and rely on the expertise that exists in existing arrangements to look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say. I suspect it is a matter that we will be debating again in due course.

course.
16:15
16:16
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I think that is almost a first for me in this House of the Minister listening to the arguments and thinking that maybe it needs further thought and consideration. I congratulate him that he has achieved that today. That is what committee should be about. We make the arguments and the question as to what the government is proposing at the Minister listens carefully and instead of defending the indefensible says, "Not bad. Good points have been made and I will think about it, and seriously Karpaty." I thank him -- seriously Karpaty." I thank him -- seriously think about it." I thank him.

It is expert to bids from people who have had experience in government and the same issues who have raised more eloquently than I the issues that are pertinent to this clause and none of us here want to be standing in the way of important development of important infrastructure and that is not what this is about. It is not about preserving heritage because, as Lord Parkinson has said, it is about new life for heritage. It is about respecting that and it is about having balance between the heritage that people in this country really value on one hand and the importance of having growth and infrastructure on the other and I think the government has got that balance wrong at the moment and so I thank everybody who is taking part in the debate and I look forward to the Minister coming back and helping us with this but I beg leave to withdraw this.

withdraw this.
16:19
16:19
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

as part of the bill. As many as of
16:19
16:19
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

question is that scheduled to be the second schedule of the bill. The
16:19
16:21
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

and we should like to be properly consulted and that appears on the face of the bill and with that I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment on page 55, Lane four,
16:21
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment on page 55, Lane four, insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall list. My Lords, clause 42 in the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, clause 42 in the bill allows for a single process similar to the Planning Act and we still to the Planning Act and we still need to consult the... I will start again. The Marine Management Organisation ensuring proper Organisation ensuring proper oversight remains in place and the application process includes application process includes consultation with the environment consultation with the environment agency and this is during the determination process and the clause determination process and the clause streamlines the process and save streamlines the process and save time with decision-making and it time with decision-making and it aligns with the transport and Works act and makes it simpler and quicker act and makes it simpler and quicker for projects that involve marine areas and the amendment would areas and the amendment would introduce blocking Paris for the environment agency that does not exist and there are excellent provisions in the planning act 2008 regime and I have nearly tripped myself up.

It reduces bureaucracy and helps deliver the infrastructure more efficiently and I appreciate the interest in the clause but I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
16:23
16:25
16:25
16:26
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed in clause
16:26
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed in clause 45, page 57, leave out Paragraph A 45, page 57, leave out Paragraph A and insert the words from the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments seek to limit the making of consequential the making of consequential amendments and clause 45 provides the ability to make consequential the ability to make consequential amendments, namely changes to amendments, namely changes to legislation that may be required only as a result of the clauses in only as a result of the clauses in the statute book. It cannot be used to implement changes nor to make amendments for reasons unrelated to amendments for reasons unrelated to the clauses in the bill.

The purpose the clauses in the bill. The purpose is simply to ensure this. If any changes are needed to the primary changes are needed to the primary legislation already existing then they would require approval from they would require approval from both houses and if the changes were made to secondary legislation. The made to secondary legislation. The Transport and Works Act interacts with a number of pieces of with a number of pieces of legislation and limits it to the Transport and Works Act on its own Transport and Works Act on its own would limit this.

The inclusion of the power is a practical and reasonable step to take to ensure reasonable step to take to ensure the most efficient legal framework and moving forward I will endeavour to set out the examples of legislation that might need to be altered. In the meantime, I asked the noble Lord to beg leave to remove his amendment.
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:29
None Portrait Amendment:55D Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-

support of his own amendments.
16:29
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

support of his own amendments. The amendment proposed, clause
16:29
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed, clause 46, page 57, Lane 31, leave out 46, page 57, Lane 31, leave out 'may', and amend 'must'.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the amendments which relate to Lane 46 under the which relate to Lane 46 under the which relate to Lane 46 under the Harper's Act 1954 and the Marine Management Organisation charges fees Management Organisation charges fees for boarders in England and for the for boarders in England and for the Reserve Trust Port Milford Haven. In Scotland, Wales, it is the responsibility of the devolved responsibility of the devolved ministers. These do not align with marine licence applications and the current system does not accurately current system does not accurately reflect the time required and especially for rocks applications and does not allow for enough and does not allow for enough flexibility in charging which leads to inefficiencies and inaccurate cost recovery and it slows down the cost recovery and it slows down the application processes.

This offers application processes. This offers great flexibility in setting fees in relation to casework, for example, relation to casework, for example, the actual fee level will be subject to consultation and relevant to consultation and relevant stakeholders are in line with the devolution settlement, this new and more flexible regime will be commenced by the Scottish and Welsh governments at the time of the choosing. I 56 is a technical amendment to amendment 359 in the Marshall list and following engagement with the Scottish and Welsh, we are amending the bill.

At introduction, the new regime would have taken precedence over the old one. Once regulations were made by the devolved governments. At this point, the UK government would have had the power to switch off the existing regime and, taken together, government amendments 56 and 359 between the existing regime did not require you to government intervention to switch it off and instead the existing regime with close automatically when the new We are grateful for the relationship we have had on this clause, the amendments are technical in nature, made with the interest of ensuring the devolved restrictions are content with the provision that requires the consent and I picked a move that they be accepted by this House.

I will turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord modern. This would not add value to clause 46, it would require regulations to include elements which either as for the method of determination of fees which would almost certainly be included anyway, such as for making incidental vision, may or may not be required to therefore risk making relations unnecessarily completed. Unlike the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. -- I invite the noble Lord. I believe to withdraw my Lord. I believe to withdraw my amendment.

Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 56, moved withdrawn. Amendment 56, moved formally. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question The contents have it. The question is that clause 46 as amended stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. In clause 47, amendment 57, Baroness Pidgeon. amendment 57, Baroness Pidgeon.
16:33
16:35
None Portrait Amendment:57 Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-

Than charging at home. So for millions of households, this is unaffordable and it's unacceptable unaffordable and it's unacceptable to expect only certain consumers to pay the price for the transition to electric. Cross pavement solutions have real potential to tackle this challenge and they have been proven challenge and they have been proven to be a workable solution in 38 to be a workable solution in 38 local authority areas to date. But the current process for applying for one is lengthy and costly.

Drivers report that you have to pay up to report that you have to pay up to around £3000 for the planning application, permitting and charge application, permitting and charge point installation costs, and waiting up to 12 to 15 months, simply for a decision from the local authority on whether on not permission to install one has been permission to install one has been granted. Many residents have given up trying to secure cross pavement up trying to secure cross pavement solutions and electric vehicles because of these delays and costs.

So this amendment is seeking to make the transition to electric fare. It the transition to electric fare. It is asking that cross pavement solutions are treated in the same way that public charge being treated. Some refine the process for treated. Some refine the process for applying for the solutions by allowing them to be treated under street works permitting. This would make it quicker, easier and less costly residents. And crucially, local authorities would still have some control over the decision on whether the cross pavement solution is appropriate and indeed so for that location and whether it can go ahead.

And then amendment 58 extends Permitted Development Rights in to electric vehicle charging points, where there is an agreed cross pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the foot weight by more than 15 cm. Government has extended Permitted Development Rights to household, wishing to install charge points, where the houses are close to the street and they have offstreet parking. This amendment seeks to extend these rights to household without offstreet parking who wish to install a charge point they can get cross pavement solution.

It does not conflate the charge point with the cross pavement solution, there are still two separate entities, but it simply ensures that those residents who are applying for a cross pavement solution can then install proper charge point that allows them access to the cheaper charging rates, that residents with driveways are already able to use. The electric Vehicle Association England provided me with this quote from the recent survey. One responded comment how the council refused to consider installing a charger gully.

Quote, we got free charge and free installation along with our car purchase but we have been able to make use of this as our local authority refuses to let us. Another hybrid car owner when asked why they didn't choose an EV said it was due to the difficulty of installing a charger. Our council has no policy or provision for pavement colleagues to make it easier, there are no on street

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public -- pavement gullies. Another quote, you shouldn't need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another quote, you shouldn't need driveway to own electric car. My driveway to own electric car. My plan of change is allowing cables to run beneath payments, that is cheap at home charging. That is not my words but the Prime Minister's a week and 1/2 ago. There is a need to make it easier for everyone to be able to move to electric vehicles, able to move to electric vehicles, through simplifying the system and allowing people without driveways to be able to move TVs.

So I hope the noble Lord the Minister will work noble Lord the Minister will work with me to this vision a reality through this legislation. Then I through this legislation. Then I move on to the other amendments in move on to the other amendments in this group in my name, amendment 64 and 6 to 7, cover HGV electric charging points, and amendment 66 covers EV charging infrastructure plans. As we transition to cleaner vehicles and technology, allows for HGVs to run on electric batteries, there is a need to support charging infrastructure in the planning system.

And the lack of adequate charging infrastructure remains one charging infrastructure remains one of the major obstacles to greater HGV adoption. According to a support by the National Grid, 70 to 90% of HGVs will be charged, refuelled overnight in their depot, or at their destinations. The remaining 2030% will rely on public charge stations. The HGVs are a reality, in stations. The HGVs are a reality, in which we had one as at the House only a few weeks ago and there are a number of announced plans for charging stations right across the country from a variety of companies.

But I know from my inbox, were the company might want to move to HGVs, but they have found the local authority would not grant planning permission for the necessary infrastructure at a depot. Stopping the decarbonisation of this industry. These amendments are about a clear installation program for HGV electric charging points at key transport points and also the provision of EV charging infrastructure at freight depots and HGV facilities when they are new, or substantially renovated. This amendment future proofs logistics infrastructure by embedding EV readiness into the design and permitting process.

And the supports depots and warehouses to be ready for the transition. Depot charging as I said is the preferred option where possible for operators, it allows trucks to charge while at a natural stopping point, not requiring additional stops to recharge in transit. Which also can leave cargo vulnerable to theft. It also reduces future retrofitting costs and planning delays by integrating charging requirements from the outset. Amendment 67 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections for EV infrastructure and tackles a major barrier to infrastructure rollout, delays in grid connection approvals.

Some fleet operators may be facing up to a 15 year wait for a grid connection meet their need for ephedra. This amendment nurses the strategic importance of logistics infrastructure for national supply chain security and decarbonisation. And then finally amendment 66 is about placing a duty on local authorities to produce a local EV charging infrastructure plan, to assess the demand and need for EV charging infrastructure in the area, including both private and commercial vehicles. This will ensure a competitive understanding of need to focus efforts.

Local authorities are critical to the rollout of EV infrastructure, but often lack a coordinated or strategic plan. This duty empowers them to take a proactive role while ensuring consistency across regions. The amendment would ensure local accountability and planning for EV infrastructure deployment aligning with national decarbonisation targets. And importantly, it establishes a re-occurring view cycle every three years to ensure plans are responsive to evolving demand and technology. This package of amendments would make a huge difference to supporting the transition to electric vehicles.

I
16:42
16:42
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
from the point where we should intend that all the new cars to be electric vehicles and is she quite the rightly said, 40% of the people who we are expecting a future to be buying cars, are in premises that do not themselves have access to charging facilities. And we want to enable that to happen, it's all part of a green energy transition which we want to support. I very much support everything that nobody said and I hope we can find the solution.

As far as I can see, the clause to which this refers is intending to support the process of guiding public charge into the, as it were, the road architecture but is not necessarily allowing individuals, individual householders, to be able to find the appropriate cross pavement charging solutions for this. My noble friend Lord Lucas has an amendment, the purpose in this group is to give development rights for this and I know the government will say, rights relate to the curtilage of one's own premises, they do not extend into the pavement for this purpose.

But I think, I hope the spirit of this debate might hope the spirit of this debate might be that we all agree on what we want to achieve, the question is how is the best way to achieve it. And may I suggest to the Minister that one of the ways we might look at is to look at section 50 of the new road which about the process for applying for a Street Works Order license and this bill is in enabling those to have such a licence to access the have such a licence to access the necessary works in the street.

Now, as I think the noble Lady said, that is an expensive solution for an individual householder. And not likely to be an easy route. So I think the question to the Minister is whether we might actually find he's in the business of streamlining applications today, can we streamline applications for street works licences for individual householders or groups of householders in order for them to get a street works licence by what is effectively a deemed consent rather than having to make individual applications, so it's a bit like an assumption that the licence will be granted, save if there are particular exceptions on particular objections.

But I think my get us to the point where householders or groups of householders can get the cross paper charging solutions that they require and I think it is urgently make this happen -- cross pavement. Another About again the green energy transition and the amendments relating to HGVs. I would just ask that not only do we look at electric charging points for HGVs but recognise that hydrogen solutions, we referred to my noble friend Lord Naseby who talked about them earlier, for HGVs, they can very readily, unlike many other vehicles, road vehicles, use hydrogen cost effectively as a solution.

But they need network. Diamondback when I was talking to my Japanese friends about HGV and hydrogen and they describing the network being created across Japan for hydrogen refuelling points for their HGV fleets. They are orders of magnitude ahead of us in this. I hope that we can think, there were in the past some intentions for a plan to support hydrogen, the installation of hydrogen refuelling points. They have always been slow to act because there needs to be the progress necessary to get us to green hydrogen if we can for this purpose, for trucks.

But I do hope that we can use the intentions that are set out here to have assessed of how we can get to an energy, green energy transition for HGVs rapidly, that it not only encompasses the electric charging points but also encompasses charging points but also encompasses
16:47
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I have amendment 57C of alternative ways of solving the same problems and I don't intend to go into it entry debt. The point is that it is something we should be moving to find a solution to and it is not simple but it is not particularly difficult either. Many of us have come across some simple charging arrangements and people seem to have been installing them ad hoc and it would be a good idea if this becomes something regular because you want it to be a properly controlled environment.

On the other hand, you don't want to make it more difficult for a householder to get what we intend to be a provision but if you're looking at a system where a lot of people have this facility, we should be looking at how we are going to manage parking in this space and there is no point having that facility if someone has left the van in the space that you need to charge your vehicle with and we also want to look at efficient use of the electric charging system and that it is used by more than one person and so how do we enable them to allow other people to charge in the space and these are not instant solutions but if we're looking ahead to this time, particularly people who live in flats with other arrangements and the parking is not sufficient, how are we going to provide that? Can be provided in a way that is better than the one we have at the moment? If it is people who have no personal interest in the facility, the prices are very high for on the street charging and if somebody has installed it for their own use, they are less motivated to charge us for someone else to use it and they are more likely to do that and I hope we can look at democratising.

I'm not saying it is easy but it is something that we have to make progress with. have to make progress with.
16:50
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I rise because there are a number of amendments in the group and I do not usually spoken on behalf of transport but I begin with the interesting comment from Lord Lucas and I would go further than that and I would say we want efficient use of cars being used by more than one person per treatment most people spend the majority of their time occupying public space when they are parked on the road and if we could come to an arrangement, this is come to an arrangement, this is where amendment 66 and local authorities looking at the charging infrastructure plan and entity that would be something in the model which could free up space in the city to be put to better use.

The last figure I saw was 96% of the time. My noble friend did not assign any of the charging solutions and I know that Caroline Russell would not forgive me if I did not make the point that we must have charging on the pavement that they must ensure the first priority as pedestrians and we do not crowd what already very difficult screen -- difficult Street escape. I declare an interest that I used to, in Camden, I tried not to trip over the electric cable that my boss trailed to his car on the street and because he was my boss I was not allowed to do anything about it.

I want to focus on amendment 64 and 67 about heavy goods vehicles and I think this is a crucial issue in terms of the environment and public health. At the moment, fewer than 1% of new HGVs being sold are electric and there are 500,000 in the British fleet and it is 20 megatons and we are talking about 2 million homes and they are bad and there is a particular matter on public health and that tends to be in disadvantaged areas and you think about homes in busy main roads.

It is the point that they are much quieter and there are public health impacts and one of the things we have with HGVs is the issue and something that is easier to drive is an issue there. There is also the discount for those who purchase them after £25,000 and there is a push and the government is spending money on it and what is lacking is the infrastructure and that is what these amendments seek to have in terms of a programme to make sure that they are covered.

At the moment, there is an issue about the charging and it is on the way and we have to think about the infrastructure and making sure it is able to cater for heavy demand and they are our strong arguments for a concerted and organised approach and what we have is ad hoc and, in too many cases, we are saying this on the pigment and -- the pavement and that is a bad idea.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are so many amendments on the issue of electric vehicles and the issue of electric vehicles and HGVs and the government missed a
16:55
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
HGVs and the government missed a trick in this bill and using it as an opportunity to rule out EVs, small lorries, door-to-door mechanisms, particularly with the timeline coming up so quickly and I hope that it would be remiss of this government and this lies at the heart of what the government is trying to do and I welcome the amendment put forward for my noble friend and I support all the amendments in this group and private amendments in this group and private cars are responsible for some 60.2 million tonnes equivalent in 2023 and private cars are the largest single source.

Road vehicles including cars make up the vast majority of emissions. Emissions are declining from cars and they have been since 25 but we still have a long way to go if we are going to hit climate targets and the time to do so is fast running out. They are growing and we are up to around 4% of all cars and this totals about 1.3 million of 34 million registered cars. However, if this goes up to 7% before we include hybrid vehicles as well and the climate change committee has been clear we have got further to go and we have got to do more and rolling out EVs and making them practical is part of this and we have to be part of these we have to be part of these obstacles and we have to make sure that people can get the benefit from owning electric cars and they are able to do this at night and being able to do it on a proper tariff and if we do not do those things, we have to make that transition in time and make these factors work for people and so this is important.

We have seen price reductions and increased government support and there is the charging infrastructure and all of these measures taken together are helping consumers and we welcome other efforts to government is making in this space. The UK has 73,000 public charging points and that is welcome and the charging network relate is helping with some of these and we can have 25 million EVs on the roads by 2040. The biggest barriers are commonly cited as a lack of infrastructure for charging and technology is improving and that is the higher cost of running cars and that is about the things we are talking about today.

We welcome the amendments. People are facing £3000 of cost to get things done and we are moving across the pavement and many cannot do this and so this needs to happen and there is HGV charging as well and this is particularly important for delivery and for small-scale vans, so that we can really continue to tackle the scourge of air pollution which is so damaging, particularly to older people, and it has radically caused asthma, and luckily we are seeing changes in that space.

We think this needs to happen and we encourage the government to go away and think more about how they can do more to bring about a joined up policy on these issues through this bill because I think more could be done through the legislation to help about the
17:00
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
I rice to echo many of the comments that have been made. -- rise. I welcome the intention in bringing this towards the committee day and considering it in depth. She was admirably supported by my noble friend and I think the government will have to get on board the widespread enthusiasm for doing everything possible to move forward again some of the serious I need to declare my interest asset out of the register.

I'm chairman of Amy which provides facilities and maintenance work for the public- sector including road and rail projects and that also cover some little projects which we will come unto in a moment, cider, interest now. -- Litter project. But also the important of EV work which is essential for work. I was Minister for the environment in the other place for possibly four letter campaigns and the Minister for in the early '90s when we began the energy transition work which led to the transition of energy vehicles.

My intention is to draw on that experience to try to assist the committee with its liberations, I expect we will hear from the government their support for the intentions that many of the amendments and raise some of the practical challenges which we need to address, if not in this bill, certainly in the near future. The key questions as icy them are as follows. An this comes on from the question of Permitted Development Rights was the questions of who funds and maintains the cross pavement solution, if a resident has a right to use it, but that is not going to happen in reality on every occasion.

The resident has no right to park outside their property in the public highway and the local authority will not police that space. If the local authority licensed a cross pavement solution and the resident moved then the acid and risk of maintenance would go Due to the complexities of excavating and reinstating the cross excavating and reinstating the cross Is to deter us from trying to address the issues, it is just highlighting some of the important issues, because there is an increased risk profile and cost which we should also consider to the local authorities, for example if someone does slip, trip or fall across the pavement, over a cross pavement galley they will turn understandably so to the local authorities as the perceived liable party -- a cross pavement galley.

We need to address all of these issues. We will overcome them I'm sure but they are important to place on the record. The second issue is whether it would help to stint Permitted Development Rights to electric vehicle charging points. And yes of course currently it is required following the planning process for large-scale installations which is timely and costly so any support and relaxation planning consents for larger installations would be helpful. Another question has been raised as to whether we need an installation program for electric charging points suitable for HGVs and my noble friend Lord Lansley commented on this.

There is still a question as to whether EV's is the right solution or whether hydrogen or synthetic fuels will be the right solution for HGVs. And then there's the question of whether we should mandate EV charging infrastructure in newly built or substantially renovated freight depots and HTC operation buildings. As first-place providers on the procurement services framework, my experience is that I believe the mandate would be welcome but the practicalities and affordability may prohibit the mandate to the significant costs.

Large-scale installations need significant network reinforcement and infrastructure investment and I do suspect that trying to balance the optimum logistics hub locations versus the DNO network may pose a challenge. I looked at the First Bus in Norwich initiative which is being excellent and electrifying fleet at the DNO HGV supply came from two comedies away resulting in a connection cost of some millions of pounds. So these are some of the issues we need to address. The sentiment behind all the amendments is absolutely right and is definitely the direction in which we should be travelling but I do think we should be grateful to the government particularly to the noble Lord the Minister, for his letter to us all, in advance of our consideration of these amendments, when he did write to us on electrical vehicle charging and was very clear about some of the challenges but equally share the enthusiasm of the committee and I think that was an excellent letter, and is a good example of its kind which we should be grateful for, and place on record our gratitude to the government for their consideration of these issues.
17:06
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I find myself somewhat out of temper with many of the noble Lords who have spoken. It would give me great pleasure to be able to say that I heartily swung behind them. And I do, but not very heartily, and with some difficulties and problems, some of which we can have been extreme will set out. I have two amendments, in fact three, but I don't intend to speak to them in detail but rather to draw to some extent on my own experience.

My noble friend Lord Lucas said that it wasn't a simple. But nor was it difficult. But then he went on to explain that in practice it really is very, very difficult. I was at one stage in charge of roads inconsistent and Chelsea, one of the places in London with the greatest demand for on street parking because nobody, few people, have an offstreet place to park their car but it is not actually terribly different in other parts of London, especially in London, and I was approached by someone, member of Lordship's House, who said, would it be possible for the council to install and electric vehicle charging point outside his house.

And as it happens we had a programme of installing such points, at the council's expense, and I said it was no difficulty at all and certainly if he wanted that I'm sure I could put that forward and it could easily happen. Not everybody welcomed it, it was nice to have a resident who did, but it would not of course people has exclusive use. And that wasn't at all what was wanted. In fact this enthusiasm for the idea waned immediately.

And the discussion we have had today, more or less envisages that people are going to have spaces, or groups of families, groups of houses, have clusters of spaces, more or less outside their front door, which they may have paid for which will be for the exclusive use. And that I'm afraid, if you put that to any local authority in London, and I suspect in many other cities, which has been elected, you would find that they would be, if they did that on a sufficient scale, they would be lynched from the nearest lamppost.

And they know that perfectly well. This is a politically, very difficult thing. It also raises an issue of principle which is to what extent should we be encouraging what is in fact the privatisation of a public asset. It is after all the public that pays for the highway, it is the public that maintains the highway and yet what is envisaged is that people are going to have exclusive use of it for themselves. And that, I'm afraid, is something which creates very, very severe difficulties that need, that have been raised but I don't think have been fully addressed by noble Lords in the case of this debate.

There is another and related point. If one puts an electric, it isn't entirely true, if one puts electric vehicle charging points to a carriageway, the tendency is of course to mark off the bay and say electric vehicles only. Now, I see that my successes in Kensington and Chelsea are not quite doing this, they are putting up signs, and this might be more effective, signs politely saying, if your car is not electric, would you mind awfully not parking next to this lamppost.

And that might achieve as much as an outright ban because sometimes being polite to people gets their compliance more than anything else. But while we still have a large number of people and mostly people on low incomes who still need access to an internal combustion engine car, the threat arises that they will be increasingly squeezed out of access to the public highway that they are paying for, in favour of middle- class people and their Tesla's. And really it is not simply the objects of this, it is the morality that is highly questionable.

Some of the points raised, some of the things that have been suggested, nothing seems more obvious to me than the suggestion from the noble Baroness Lady Pidgeon that it should be mandatory for freight depots to have electric charging points in them that can be used by electric HGVs. Of course that sort of thing should be happening and she gave other examples of a similar character. It's not everything is difficult. But when you come to that interaction, particularly of course, with the pavement edge and the people park them, there are serious difficulties not only for practical local politics but also of equity.

Social equity. It's very easy to think, because some things are a good idea, we should all push for it and make it happen and just shove the obstacles to one side. And I don't mean this to be excessively critical of the noble Baroness Lady Pidgeon, but I'm very struck by her Amendment that says, we must prioritise electric charging, electricity supply, grid electricity supply, to electric charging infrastructure. Prioritise means to choose. It means to say that one thing is more important than another.

So my question would be, prioritise over what? Prioritise over electricity supply to a new housing estate? Prioritise over electricity supply to a new hospital or a care home? Those questions don't just vanish because summary has enthusiasm for subject, they are real choices. I think the Minister already is going a little bit too far for what I think the public will bear and that is the thrust and government of the amendments that I have tabled. Certain noble Lords including a regret to say certain noble friends have gone perhaps even further than that noble Lord the Minister.

I am not following them in that direction and I shall do my best between now and report to reason with them, as we normally do in the Conservative Party, so that we may present a united front of common sense and reason to this House when we return to this debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the noble Lord says he is
17:13
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the noble Lord says he is out of temper, I'm out of energy, so out of temper, I'm out of energy, so I will be as briefly can be. -- Is I can be. The tone of the discussion stimulated by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord Lucas and noble Lord little who was here earlier, who has hopefully reached Preston by now, it is getting part Preston that is the difficulty of Avante.

The general tone of the discussion is of course as noble Lords will have noted very positive and that entirely accords with the government attention which is to promote the use of zero emission vehicles and I thank the noble Baroness Lady Pidgeon particular for her introduction and direct nice the passion with which she has spoken may I recognise the passion. And that is entirely in accordance with the government decide to move forward. Other contributions have raised some choices about the form of zero emission power, especially for HGVs and hydrogen, and also the noble Lord Monaghan raised in a slightly more positive way, and the name Lord Moylan, some issues that need to be resolved in these matters as we move forward.

So the government is working with local authorities to promote cross pavement solutions, including the most recently announced £25 million grant fund to encourage the installation of cross pavement channels, plus published guidance for local authorities on this technology, and charge points grant funding for residents. We do recognise that cross pavement solutions will not be suitable for all scenarios, local highway authorities are responsible for designing each application considering the need of opinions of residents and Baroness Bennett course raised the issue which we should be mindful of, other users of the pavement who need a safe and level surface and local authorities will have to take out of this because as the noble Lord Monaghan remarks, it is they who will be held accountable if people fall over or accountable if people fall over or This is an important incident and the government is well aware of it and that is why we launched a call for evidence and we are currently considering responses.

Beyond the call for evidence, we are extending if it is right in terms of offstreet parking and to include houses with one-street parking that has been installed. That is the appropriate route to understand the changes required to support the solutions required to support the solutions and if we decide on the development rights, and the noble Lord was eloquent on this, we will use the existing powers to do that. I thank Lord Moylan for amendment 57A.

The purpose of the clause is for Infrastructure across England. This is a step to streamlining the process for public charging points as the demand for infrastructure rises. Existing mechanisms already allow highway authorities to manage public goods effectively and when an EV charging point as required, they can designate it. His remarks about how the B is signed and what promoters might say contributions to debate. The process involves consultation and formal publication of the authorities' intent. This can temporarily disrupt the arrangements and a temporary traffic order may be used and authorities must publish the intention to suspend in advance.

My Department also provides statutory guidance and the code of practice for the coordination of street and road works and provides early engagement and consultation. We must ensure the regulatory framework enables recovery and the introduction of an additional requirement for impact assessment would place undue burden on authorities and that would be compounded against the number of applications for the charging points growing. To expect authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit application to install the public charge point would reduce the cost of the Minister but also hinder the ability for what is set out in the guidance which censored parameters for response times.

I meant 50 7B, third did noble Lord for the amendment and this is for access to conventional parking and the government wants to support the rollout of electric vehicle infrastructure across England and the clause is a necessary step to streamlining the application and the proposed amendment would impose a statutory obligation on the highway authorities after installing the charge point and to respond to a request by affected residents and businesses to carry out a formal review of the impact for other review of the impact for other vehicles.

That could be requested and diverts resources away from funds which are critical and it also funds which are critical and it also works with the cost of delay and under the traffic management regulations which was updated in 2023, highway authorities can look at assessing impact and managing disruption, particularly when developing the scheme and the code of practice for street works promotes early engagement on information sharing and so the amendment adds complexity without delivering meaningful benefits and risks slowing the pace for the employment and I would suggest it's not in line with the sentiment expressed today.

I turned to amendment 66 and thank the Baroness for tabling the amendment and the government recognises local authorities have a crucial part to play in the transition and we have strongly agreed on this and they are well placed as they are experts in local areas and they know the type of charge needed and it is crucial to the successful rollout. We agree local authority should have things in place to strategically deploy the infrastructure and this will mean they are prepared and can get the best out of investment and provide the best notebooks to the visitors alike and in the English paper, we set the expectation for all authorities to deliver the charge point strategy and that will of course and should include the car club model referred to in the debate and officials are currently reviewing the guidance for local transport plans and we are expected to publish the updated guidance later in the year.

I turn to amendment 64 and 67 tabled by Lady Pidgeon and relating to charging infrastructure for 0-emission vehicles and the government recognises much needs to be done to decarbonise the sector given at the end of 2024 there were only 194 registered in the UK. The market for the zero emission HGVs is at an early stage and the technology is still developing and we understand that technology is better suited for that technology is better suited for specific use cases.

It is clear that considering hydrogen for HGVs is likely to be practical and we are likely to be practical and we are working carefully and I want a high charging infrastructure network. Up to the infrastructure demonstrator and there is the terrible initials which I will not use again and it is funding hundreds of HGVs battery, electric, hydrogen fuel cell technologies. The program will make available data on the zero emission HCV technology that is better suited to use cases, providing confidence in the sector and enabling informed investment decisions.

As part of the program, there are 73 plant infrastructure locations at the motorway service areas and this will support the mission buys infrastructure. Alongside this, -- support the nationwide infrastructure. Alongside the private investment in each EV charging hops, it is also increased. This has been comforted by the recently announced £30 million charging scheme which provides support to fleet operators on the cost of installing the infrastructure for electric HGVs and the government is committed to working with the freight and logistics sector to provide confidence during the transition and to work to address barriers.

For the reasons outlined, I asked the Baroness to withdraw the amendments. I thank the noble Lord for tabling I thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and while I appreciate preserving the general parking access, this would provide a counter-productive burden at a time when we must accelerate the transition to cleaner transport. Traffic authorities have robust powers on the Traffic Regulation Act and the process for this includes mandatory publication of content and the safeguards ensure transparency and community engagement.

The noble Lords will have the equivalent for parking within 200m for additional consultation and this is a bureaucratic hurdle which will slow down the infrastructure. As he remarked, this is often impossible and that could effectively block the progress where it is needed. It's important to consider the national net zero requirements and any delay in the infrastructure is a delay in reducing transport emissions. Lastly, local authorities must be empowered to make decisions reflecting specific needs of communities, imposing thresholds and additional procedural hurdles risk stifling innovation and slowing progress.

We should trust local leaders to act responsibly and within the existing legal framework rather than the necessary limitations. I ask the noble Lord to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the Minister for his detailed response
17:26
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Minister for his detailed response and thank all members who have spoken on this group and all of us apart from one agree with what we want to achieve and we understand it can be complex but it is clear we must streamline things to make it easier, cheaper, quicker for cross- payment solutions to help people transition to electric vehicles and I believe that simplifying the process can be something be achieved through the planning Bill and we will see what happens today.

Either people are not able to move to electric vehicles or we have cables draped out of windows, across pavements, and trip hazards. The Prime Minister committed to within the last couple of weeks. I hope we can continue to have dialogue on this before the report stage and, on that basis, I beg the gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. 57 B,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. 57 B, not move. 57C, not. The contents not move. 57C, not. The contents not move. 57C, not. The contents have it. After 47, Baroness Pidgeon, not move. Amendment 59.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not move. Amendment 59. I think the ministry said he was running out of energy so I reassure running out of energy so I reassure him he will not lose out and I rise him he will not lose out and I rise to speak on her behalf to amendment 59 in this group and I would like to refer noble Lord to my register of refer noble Lord to my register of interest and I speak completely independent of the network. I'm sure
17:28
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
when I stand to speak, many of my colleagues in the House and many on the Frontbench think what I have to say is full of excrement and I am pleased to satisfy them today because when it comes to the topic of sewage, it is not offered it can be associated with good news but Tideway is a good news story in the UK. It was totally open by the king earlier this year and -- it was officially opened by the King earlier this year.

I'm told enough earlier this year. I'm told enough storm sewage to fill Wembley 1.5 times. I was trying to figure out how many times it would still be chamber. I will leave that to brainier people than me. This is the marvel of modern engineering and spans from acting in the west of the city and passing under iconic London landmark. -- Acton. It has taken many years to build. It was there is for you to come and protect the precious natural environment from sewage at the same time.

Ambitious infrastructure projects like Tideway do not come cheap. That is why in 2013 the specified infrastructure projects regulations were created and without wanting to go too much into this, these regulations possible that the Tideway project was paid for using a novel finance mechanism. In doing so, it reduced the burden for the investors, reduce the cost of capital, and spread the cost over generations of Londoners who will benefit from the project and the debt will be paid for at the long term by bill payers, much like a mortgage.

Before the work started, it was estimated the project would it was estimated the project would cost customers £20-25 a year at 2015 places and the cost has remained well within the range since. In itself, this is a remarkable achievement. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it makes Tideway a good news story. We know that too many, as we discussed earlier, too many infrastructure projects are held back in this These are well-known, in the case of the water sector I thrown the additional factor of uncertainty of whether a regulator or authorise the investment.

It's great to see the final version of the review earlier this week when the changes that could be coming off what's way as a result. One other change can -- government could consider is the amendment tabled in Baroness Coffey's name, number 59 was the specified infrastructure project regulations of 2013 have enabled it to come into existence but they have the potential to make it possible to finance far more infrastructure projects in the country. The simple amendment to the 2013 regulations merely removing the size and complexity test for the awarding of a licence for an infrastructure project would mean the projects would be considered based on value of money alone.

This could add large and necessary infrastructure like reservoirs. We haven't built in US one's country since the 90s despite growing what insecurity. This amendment would help change this. Many companies eyeing up these regulations as a means of financing instruct projects I respect making it easier for the regulations to be used considering the strength of this amendment should clear with our own ambition to build more infrastructure the more economic growth. Whilst I am standing I also speak on behalf of my other noble friend Baroness McIntosh to speak to amendment 62, in brief both noble friends apologise for not being able to speak to Theranos directly, Baroness McIntosh wishes to have the debate around and set up why she is in favour of building smaller reservoirs required by for example golf clubs, farms, to serve their needs.

It is currently discouraged by the minimus rules in the 1975 reservoir act. It means rules and safety regulations are very own rest and disproportionate to the risk they pose. Whilst my noble friend welcomes the fact that a review is currently underway we would like to inject and insert some sense of urgency into that review so the changes from legislation most likely through the regulations rather than primary legislation can follow. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 37 insert the new clause what infrastructure project licences as printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I have amendment 61 in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have amendment 61 in this group. The purpose of this follows on from my noble friend Lord Gascoigne said, we have not built a Gascoigne said, we have not built a new reservoir for a long time. The intention of clause 61 is to give the government power to change that.
17:33
17:36
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
a one-sided solution rarely serves us well. Especially regarding water storage and distribution. I storage and distribution. I particularly thank Lord Gascoigne particularly thank Lord Gascoigne and Lord Lucas for inspiring this discussion and this debate. There is discussion and this debate. There is a consensus on building new reservoirs, but this cannot be done in isolation. Proper investment from water companies is essential, water companies is essential, particularly in tackling leaks and improving demand management. So that we use water more wisely even as we boost supply, this is not an either boost supply, this is not an either or it must be both.

Yesterday in the statement regarding the Independent Water Commission, it was laid down Water Commission, it was laid down very clearly the full implication of the broken infrastructure that has led to so much water going to waste. It is tempting to focus on grand large-scale projects but we should also make space for smaller locally also make space for smaller locally The needs and fabric of our communities. Alongside ambitious infrastructure, a program of carefully sited small and medium reservoirs delivered in partnership with farmers, landowners and councils can speed up progress, remove environmental barriers and most importantly engage local people.

We have heard not just from experts but from communities themselves that local schemes such as slow the flow projects natural dams and catchment based storage bring added benefits of foreign -- flood mitigation by diverse teen not just water supply, these net nature friendly solutions must be championed alongside larger championed alongside larger reservoirs. But local schemes alone and not a laugh. We must pay them with strategic national thinking. Regions with water surplus should be able to support those facing deficit, a modern integrated network for water transfer and bear with me because this is a little bit complicated but the water national, the national infrastructure commission which was in turn replaced by the National input service transformation authority in April 25 was in turn praised by the National Audit Office for their proposals which constituted a positive cost benefit case for establishing a network of strategic reserve of water.

A transfer system which enables us to balance supply across the country, smoothing out regional disparities and providing resilience against drought and The recent Commons Library briefing on future water resources highlights several proposed intracompany transfers such as Thames water to Southern Water, 120 megalitres a day. Demonstrating active steps can and are already being undertaken. Alongside both large and small reservoirs these transfer schemes are truly integral to future proofing our water supply and reducing the risk of shortages.

Turning to the amendment before us, amendment 59 in the name of Baroness Coffey proposes removing the size and complexity test for new what infrastructure to focus solely on the value for money test. But as Ofwat's current regulations set out, that test ensures that projects do not threaten water companies fundamental service to customers. Given the sector's current state we should tread carefully before removing the safeguard, a more prudent path may be to consider government co-funding models such as that now being used for nuclear.

If projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver, and are in jeopardy of providing a poor or totally broken service or further broken should I say, to consumers. Amendment 61 in the name of Lord Lucas without powers to the Secretary of State to dictate timelines and crucially permit bypassing planning controls and while there is much in the amendment that we read with interest, I worry about in particular paragraph 3 some point be which is a significant centralisation of power.

Yes there has been an unacceptable delay in reservoir construction, but concentrating such powers is unlikely to foster better income, the local engagement as we made very clear in all second reading speeches and scrutiny need to be balanced under our vital partners to each other. Amendment city to table by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering aligned more closely with the objectives on these benches, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the compelling arguments that were made on her behalf.

Above all we must ensure that interventions, whether mighty reservoirs or smaller community scale schemes work for people and for nature delivering with transparency, accountability and genuine urgency. I hope the Minister will clarify the government support for small reservoirs and for robust water transfer network so that every region and every customer in every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

region could feel protected, valued. Must intervene in this group just
17:40
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Must intervene in this group just to flag up a couple of points by May. Firstly just to thank Lord Gascoigne for introducing amendment Gascoigne for introducing amendment 59 which I think made an interesting point. I would just say in response to Baroness Grender, size and complexity threshold test is about assessing whether whether an infrastructure project is of such size or complexity that essentially water undertaking can't manage or if they attempt to manage it it might register their financial ability to meet their obligations to customers I think actually under current circumstances we reach the point where many water undertakers may not have the capacity to undertake infrastructure projects and the way we expected in the past and we know we know there was a substantial period when they did manage investment and increased investment in the water industry then in more recent years they haven't done so and there is considerable risk to their ability to undertake infrastructure we are looking for.

We shouldn't be surprised this is the case, Anglian Water who are not amongst the most prejudiced of water companies at the moment I was very interested to attend a presentation about the Anglian Water proposals of course for the fans reservoir. Fascinating positive, optimistic all of those things and then they just mentioned in response to question that of course they are not going to own it, somebody else is going to own it and we don't know who's going to own it, so we do have to be aware that there is substantial uncertainty about how we are going to fund much of this infrastructure, but actually the most important thing is, as Lord Gascoigne's presentation of a man 59, amendment presentation of a man 59, amendment 59 is about putting which projects should go out to competitive tender, that's all it really tells us.

The answer ought to be if it will secure value for money and indeed for that matter if there is a potential for independent financing and as the noble Lord in his presentation can be more cost effectively delivered and we know actually the risk premium of the water undertaking themselves is making their borrowing more expensive than may well be available through other sources of financing then we should go down that path. The size and complexity threshold test is unhelpful, just gets in the way.

It creates serious impediment to getting on with infrastructure projects. The amendment of course is not deliverable, doesn't deliver the objectives in its own right and would have to change the Water Act 1991 and section 36 of the section substantially in order to achieve the objective because because the regulation derives its power from the primary legislation so for report stage I think we need to look at water in 1991 in substance to achieve that. Lord Lucas I thought it's really helpful what he says in his amendment because when one looks at what is the governance the delivery rose was as far as I can tell under the reservoirs act 1975 is what it says is it basically ought to be done by an appropriately approved engineer, that's pretty much it.

There's a great deal that should be added to what is required in order to secure I do just want to make two other points. Firstly amendment 62 from Baroness McIntosh is really I think raises a more significant point than the amendment itself says. If we are going to secure what we need in terms of water supply and just reminding noble Lords of my development interest in both Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, but of course means there are two reservoirs, the fans and the Lincolnshire reservoir and also another project, the grand Union Canal project related to activity to try and supply these of England and we are in a position whereby 2050 would have a deficit water supply equivalent to 1/3 of our present use, so that's the degree of stress that we are looking at and therefore the need both for demand management to be substantially improved and for the supply to be improved there are many measures we take and I think small- scale farm scale reservoir approach that are implicit in this of really have significant potential.

Mrs I hope look at the permitted development rights at 25,000 cubic metres threshold and say well actually we can go beyond that. We can go to a higher level of permitted development on small-scale reservoirs. Because there is into definition of low hazard reservoirs, there is a definition in the reservoirs act of high risk reservoirs, but I think it would be rather helpful for the permitted development rights also to be supplemented by amendments into the reservoirs act that demonstrates there is a streamlined and superfine procedure for enabling other The big reservoirs we have not had for 30 years but we have had others in the intervening period, and we should have more.

The final thing is, I hope, if time is not permitted for that Committee stage, we get a proper examination of the ways in which pollution use this legislation, and time to permit it before the end of the year, to take on board some of the Cunliffe report recommendations. Some are relevant, for example information. He talks in recommendation 74 about extending permitted developer rights for water companies, and we should certainly look at that. Recommendation 40 talks about changing some of the planning regulations relating to water reuse.

We should certainly pick that up I hope in the course of two drive water reuse infrastructure in the new developments that we are bringing forward. I hope that will be something that will go into some of our planning thinking. He talks about in recommendation 72 and 73, that we should support the time and delivery of water industry infrastructure through the planning infrastructure through the planning process. I hope this first part of the bill and the national infrastructure project will do exactly that.

But also the role of water companies and the planning process should be strengthened. I hope will look when we get to strategic develop and strategies, and plan making, that we absolutely will make sure that water companies are both involved and the water resources plans coming through are reflected into the strategic development strategies. But also we make sure that water companies and that water resource management plans contain a full account, and the infrastructure delivery programs of the water undertakers take account of where the strategic development and the new homes and new employment is going to be delivered in the future.

I do hope that we will be able to come back to that further in the report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to address the important amendments concerning
17:48
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
water infrastructure, each of which touches on future resilience and efficiency of our water sector. These amendments reflect a shared desire to ensure that regulatory framework space with the demands of modern infrastructure delivery while safeguarding value for money, service quality for consumers. Firstly amendment 59, proposes to remove the size and complexity test currently embedded in water regulations. This is a timely and helpful amendment particularly in the light of the Cunliffe review published only this past Monday. The review highlights that under specified infrastructure projects, regulations, this test can only be applied where projects are of such scale and complexity that the risk threatening water company's ability to provide services and value to customers.

However the government has recently signalled its intention to relax these criteria is. In this context I ask the Minister to clarify my when the government intends to relax these criteria. How will they do so? When will the opportunity presented by Mike noble friends amendment be used to implement such relaxation? We need a regulatory environment that is more flexible, better suited to facilitate timely delivery, much- needed infra structure projects, without unnecessary procedural hurdles that can cause delays and cost overruns.

Finally I wish to address amendment 61 and 62 both related to reservoir construction and regulation. We recognise the importance of the delivery of new reservoirs. We acknowledge their vital role in enhancing water security and supporting our long- term infrastructure goals. While I would like to support Lord Lucas on his amendment 61, we do have a concern whether introducing new possibly burdensome regulation is necessary, or would this risk creating delays or have unintended consequences? Amendment 62 put forward by Lady Pickering seeks to deregulate low reservoirs.

We believe this can streamline processes where the risk is minimal allowing resources to be focused on the highest risk infrastructure. Water infrastructure is a Critical National Priority. In the light of these differing proposals, I asked the Minister to give the House a clear answer on the government's position. How does the government intend new reservoirs to be built? What regulatory approach will be taken to balance safety, efficiency, and the urgent need for water infrastructure? I look forward to the Minister's response on these important matters.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is of course a pleasure to hear the noble Lord
17:52
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
introduce these amendments. He referred to the success of the Thames Tidal Wave project. A number of references to who did it, the person in charge of the project is Andy Mitchell who has done an extraordinarily good job. It is right that his name should be next to the project itself. These amendments seek to insert new clauses in this bill specific to water infrastructure. I turned to amendment 59 tabled by lady Kofi which seeks to move the size and complexity test specified into the infrastructure projects, known as SIPR.

The government is resisting this amendment because they have already committed to reviewing this framework. The Chancellor's new approach to ensure regulators and regulations of growth policy paper published in March 2025. That paper confirmed that DEFRA will amend the S IPR framework to help major water projects proceed more quickly and deliver better value for the bill payers. It is important this review goes ahead to any changes are properly informed by regulators and industry. Removing the size and Quebec City threshold now will pre- empt that process and risk creating a regime that does not focus on diverse needs and priorities.

We will continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure the specified infrastructure projects remains targeted, and delivers value for customers. The noble Lord asks when this review will be completed, I can assure you it will be completed in this calendar year. I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment but I kindly ask, the noble Lord Gascoigne on her behalf, to withdraw the amendment. Turning to amendment 61, tabled by Lord Lucas, this amendment seeks to introduce regulations and milestones of enforcement for various delivery, and reservoir proposals.

The government has already taken urgent steps to improve water security. This involves action to improve water efficiency and reduce water company leaks alongside investing supply infrastructure including new reservoirs and transfers. We are taking action to speed up the process for new reservoirs. For example we recently revised the national policy statement for water resources infrastructure, to make clear the need for the proposed reservoirs in that water company's statutory management be demonstrated. Of what price review final settlement in December 2024 the water sector is also unlocked record investment around the £104 billion of spending to come between 2025 and 2030.

It includes £8 billion of investment to enhance water supply and manage demand, such as enable the developers of nine new reservoirs. As part of that, leakages will reduce significant leave. We have taken steps with Ofwat to improve water company oversight by increasing reporting and assurance requirements on deliveries, improve protection for customers from companies failing to deliver improvements by return of the funding to customers, and encouraging companies to deliver on time by implying incentives. The government, as the House has already heard, also commissioned Sir Jon Cunliffe to do the Independent Water Commission.

It is a once in a generation opportunity to modernise the water industry and deliver a resilient water supplies. The government is grateful to Sir Jon and the commission for their work, and will carefully consider their findings and recommendations including those that the noble Lord including those that the noble Lord and Andrew Lansley refers to. We will introduce root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry, working in partnership with water companies, investors, and communities, the government will introduce a new water reform bill to modernise the entire system.

I hope that Lord Lucas is therefore reassured the proposed clause is unnecessary, and I would kindly ask him to withdraw the amendment. Turning to amendment 62 introduce by Lord Gascoigne on behalf of Lady McIntosh, I should state that the amendment proposed is not necessary. It is a probing amendment to consider what is being facilitated about the construction of small reservoirs. The government is encouraging building both small and large reservoirs. It improves the resilience to climate change, sustains food production and water security and support economic growth.

Reservoirs safety legislation does not prevent reservoirs being constructed but does ensure that structures are well built and maintained. Streamlining the planning system will make it quicker and easier in the future. It is important reservoirs do not place flood risks for local communities by being on unsuitable locations, existing reservoir dams are structurally unsafe. As of us will store water above ground level and pose risks to live, the environment and cause economic disruptions, although it means if the dam structure were to fail.

These risks will manage reservoir safety regulation for the reservoirs that store water below ground level do not pose the same risks, and reservoir safety regulations are out of scope. Current advice to farmers and landowners is they should consider options for non-raised water storage will stop the government is intending to consult in the autumn over proposals to improved reservoirs during making requirements more tailored and bringing some sort of raised reservoirs in scope. The proposal should not alter the need for more reservoirs nor do they stop the ones being built.

They are to ensure reservoirs are structurally sound and flood risks for communities downstream are managed. I appreciate the interests of noble Lords in tabling this but for reasons I set out above, I would kindly ask noble Lords to Begley to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I'm conscious that the hour is late and already the two chief whips are conspiring to tell us when we need to rattle through. And that is just what my Chief Whip said. I'm
17:59
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
just what my Chief Whip said. I'm grateful to the Minister and everyone who has participated. And it has been a good discussion. It was Lord Lucas who made the correct observation in the decision about water infrastructure itself. It is important that that links into housing and the need to build homes. Someone, I can't remember who, made the point that, it may have been Lord Lansley, about the Cunliffe review as a whole and the need to have a broader discussion about what was said.

I'm sure that will happen. I'm conscious were heading into recess. This has been a good discussion, albeit short, and I'm grateful to many points that my noble friend makes about the regulations and legislation. For now, in behalf of my noble friend big leaved withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment amendments beginning with amendment 60. After clause 47, amendment 60, 60. After clause 47, amendment 60, 60. After clause 47, amendment 60, staring at me but also I will be brief and hopefully cheery, this brief and hopefully cheery, this will be a cheery discussion. This amendment basically does the description says which in effect requires the Secretary of State publishes guidance to developers, local authorities and local planning local authorities and local planning authorities on the planting of trees and other greenery on the roads of and other greenery on the roads of new develop and.

Whilst the highways that describes what a highway at -- that describes what a highway at -- is in the general view of how this could work it's a light touch and could work it's a light touch and hands off, the crucial thing here is guidance issued but it is those on the ground actually decide how to the ground actually decide how to proceed or not. I start with a fundamental point, with new developments we have the opportunity to look at putting in more trees, more nature and biodiversity.

As the more nature and biodiversity. As the Minister I'm sure will have in the words of his response which is in fact that whilst the government supports the thrust of what I'm saying, legislation is unnecessary and as to my noble friend on the bench I'm sure he will say something about we don't need more rules, more burden, so I'd like to pre-empt what they say back to me and get the ball over the net first to coin a phrase. I would like to start by setting the scene as to why this is required.

Unconscious there is a poor debate In part three I'm not going to open that Pandora's box now, we've got plenty of time for that government Chief Whip don't worry. Some initial contact, since the 70s nature and wildlife has that significant decline. Woodlands faced challenges and street trees also have been in decline for research from 2023 showed that 43% of neighbourhoods in England have less than 10% tree canopy cover while 84% have less than 20% coverage. There is I'm afraid to say significant regional variation across England.

This isn't just about by domestic nature with the combined benefit that it brings to us as well, Berkeley group published a report noting the many benefits of greening open places from tackling pollution to cooling services and the street trees and wider vegetation can lead to more cattle driving and tends to reduce crime. There's an economic argument, people have a higher view of shops if there are trees nearby by about 35% increase and they spend, not to mention greener places are better for mental health.

In the same study notes they can even be poured economic value linked to greenery from tackling depression and higher house prices for example. Turning specifically to my amendment, I want to be clear I know there are some developers out there that are going beyond their obligations and really putting biodiversity front and Groups are working with the RSPB and tree and design action group to make sure trees and nature are supported and developed and ensuring planting success to form opinions also share experiences, I do know there are others doing it as well.

This amendment is to ensure that that best practice and support and advice is offered across-the-board. Not all developers will have the expertise ready at their hand nor the experience what worked before and experience what worked before and what didn't, for example in species or issues around notes. Those more concerned about issues relating to trees rather than the upside the guidance can be clear what is a street and what is a road, therefore also where trees are not appropriate, and as to what is expected by existing regulations and obligations.

Guidance can also set out other forms of green infrastructure beyond trees, sustainable drainage or head range -- hedgerows, this leads me to crucial point about why guidance is crucial. Last year the University of Sheffield in the survey of nearly 6,000 houses across 42 new develop and found hedgerows had not only not been the maintain the new developments indeed some maintenance was seen to be destructive, in the same study on trees was a high rate of them not surviving beyond the initial planting. Some were planted in 30degrees heat with only one watering.

The advice can cover long-term maintenance. Regular appearance in this debate is the possible lack of expertise on the ground, some local authorities usually the bigger ones may be better resourced and here again the advice can help planning authorities to provide clarity as to what the laws say and on regulations on health and safety. Again though I turn to a more crucial point that this is not owners. It's not an additional burden it is anything but. It explicitly advises how it's possible in the least burdensome way.

Ultimately though it is up to the developer and planning authority, this amendment we simply advise it can even be done on online in an effort to save trees full stop like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend as I was to my own Frontbench, Lord Moylan, and I hope he used the word he was unable to support wholeheartedly while here it is opportunity for not long ago he handed over the sceptre of power from the chairmanship of the built environment Select Committee and in doing so I led a debate on the back of a report which then committed that the five chairmanship might find chairmanship on the highway act, I quote from that report more green space and improved cannot restore the prospects of the High Street but they should be a key consideration in any proposed regeneration program.

It's also a delight to this amendment not just have my noble friend on the Frontbench but also minister, Lord Hendy responding on behalf of the government stop it takes me back to the halcyon days of City Hall which I'm sure the Baroness Miller tree were certainly halcyon days under the previous mayor. Back then the Minister sorry , the Minister was , the Minister was running , the Minister was running TfL , the Minister was running TfL when they had thousands of street trees on the road network and the mayor which TfL supported delivered many more thousands of street trees as well we did that along with partners but also with local authorities and business to improve local business to improve local , and ultimately Brighton areas up.

It wasn't imposed, it was bottom-up because people want them in their areas. I say the second reading but don't need to have nature over housing or housing over nature, one needs to lose the other to win. It's a false choice that many and I'm afraid to say forgive me Chief Whip, many Apia including my own party seem to be saying. This debate in a wider debate seems to be orchestrated something of growth vs nature, if people would engage and talk to developers, many who are doing this, people out there who want it and the people like me who just want us to build build more nature as well.

I'm afraid we don't hear people reaching for some magical mythical potion which says radical solution in the hope that fixes things in itself. The quick publicity which is paper round your fish and chips the next day, a simple tweet saying down with the NIMBYs is a solution. Here's an amendment which tackled the real issues, supports development, puts nature in commits positive practical and lifts the vision. It's simple, costless, effective and helps deliver what is in the NPPF, it works with the environmental improvement plan and is part of by diverse put in more nature, help developers and local authorities, whilst this amendment doesn't seek to retrofit what we've built already and change the past it looks to the future and build communities people want to live in and I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Men proposed -- amendment. Insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List. I rise briefly undersupply should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly undersupply should follow the eminent enthusiasm of Lord Gascoigne and thank him for moving this amendment full stop I
18:08
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
moving this amendment full stop I have to begin when you have an amendment headline planting trees next to new roads to point out of course if you are talking about highways et cetera we shouldn't be building new roads and all too often we are destroying wonderful pieces of nature, I'm thinking here at this moment of standing behind the side a wonderful oak tree which would have been a sapling when Elizabeth I was on the throne. Which was threatened by the Norwich link road Which was threatened by the Norwich Link Rd, Western link which luckily it would appear has been saved by some bats.

Sometimes the bats do when. Nonetheless I do support this amendment and I think the noble Lord has made the case for it very strongly. I should declare an interest since we are talking about old times as one of the campaigners at the save Sheffield trees campaign which really helped to highlight to the nation to human health benefits of street trees and how important they are to human health and well- being. That's what we are talking about here as well as by diverse and nature full stop in the time I will just say one other thing which is I think the noble Lord alluded to this but it's worth stressing that trees and other plantings, we think we've got to have it for the trees but of course that's crucial for other wildlife.

Potentially we should be ensuring roads are as good as they can possibly be wildlife corridors, and obviously birds is the thing to think about their but with many noble Lords probably aware of the phrase insect Armageddon and the fact of how our insect population at the base of the food web have been collapsing and plantings beside roads and in urban areas should be providing some sort of refuge, some restoration here I previously referred in this debate to the fact that we are not meeting the legal target to reverse the decline in nature by 2030 which is of course in the Environment Act.

I will say one final thing that you might be thinking I'm getting fairly small within set but I also want to focus on the importance of a rich microbial world and a rich fungal world. Just out yesterday the Society for the protection of underground networks produced some really important work pointing out that fungal diversity hotspots, very few are in protected areas. We actually need to have a healthy environment going forward we need to think about all elements of life in the web in which all of our bodies actually live and this is just a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

small step but I think it's very sensible and practical one. I rise very briefly to speak to
18:11
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly to speak to this amendment. I really appreciate this amendment being put forward and this amendment being put forward and I appreciate the manner and style with which it was presented. I welcome the noble Lords comments and welcome the noble Lords comments and speeches in this place. This amendment 60 requires the issuing of guidance around the planting of trees and highways to be done within six months of the act Coming into force. As the noble Lord says this doesn't require a great expense, we feel it is helpful and a useful measure.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord this is not about development vs nature, we need both, both need to be conjoined and considered together because we as people who live in the new developments you need to thrive not just survive need these things to work to make sure, and they are better for all of us they reduce health inequalities, they make us healthier and happier and make our lives more pleasant. I wanted to speak specifically about one example which aim to mind on this, that was the work done on the upgrade scheme on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntington.

The upgrade to that road opened in 2020. As part of the upgrade program 850,000 saplings were planted by the highways agency. Unfortunately that was done in extreme heat, there were poor soils and as a result about -- three quarters of the trees that the highway agency planted died. That was with roughly half a million trees. They are being replanted, the replanting costs was £2.9 million. This raises the issue about how we replant nature again I don't want to go into part three but there are obviously issues about trying to replicate nature and move nature from one place to the other and this is a very example of that.

Going beyond that, local communities really got involved in this area and I want to give my thanks to them because they went out and planted trees themselves and cared for them and nurtured them and they've done a great job in trying to put right some of this mass. Some of the trees planted, they were the wrong types of trees, they didn't have enough soil around them so they dried out there were planted in the wrong, the soil was bad it was the wrong type of trees, the saplings were too young, generally it wasn't very well done and the trees that were planted weren't cared for or nurtured.

What tends to happen is there is a concentration in numbers, it's a numbers game. Everybody had a treeplanting commitment in their manifesto, my treeplanting commitment is bigger than yours. What we need is we need trees to be cared and nurtured and suggested the government politely that we don't have a numbers planted but we have a numbers in five years time. How many trees five years after the finishing of the planting actually survive and are counted, and if there aren't are counted, and if there aren't enough then more planting is done.

Trees are really important, I think this is a valuable opportunity for the government to look at the strategies, for us to have a broader look at how we do this so I really welcome this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much support my noble friend and indeed the speeches made friend and indeed the speeches made sense. Guidance getting good guidance published makes a lot of
18:15
18:17
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
an environmentalist and nature lover. I found this amendment beautifully presented by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. Somewhat extravagantly perhaps I was told that more trees would improve driving. Does he even believe that? Just think what experiment you would have to conduct to be able to prove that. Not every tree is as attractive as you might think. But across the road from my front door, there is a mulberry tree. And most of the year it is survivable.

At the moment it is absolutely fatal. It is dropping its half formed all breeds on the pavement causing danger in every direction as well as being terribly ugly. Householders were out today trying to sweep it off the pavement because I assume he was worried about liability. Around the corner we have very fine plain trees in Queensgate. They must be 150 years old but they suck so much water out of the clay that they cause subsidence in the houses adjacent.

In order to protect, because it is the councils liability, the council aggressively uses the water demand. There is a right base for trees. Bedford Park in West London built as a semirural extension would look ridiculous without trees. Of course it has to have trees. Whereas other places with fine Italian terraces are themselves made ridiculous, if you plant the odd tree in the carriageway because you can't fit it in on the footway because of the voids under the pavement with which they were built to house coal.

Everything must be judged very finely and at local level. The idea that the source of this demand should be a civil service in MHCLG producing guidance which includes, to my horror I have to say, standard designs and planting ballads, what is that going to do? One Ash, one popular, one oak, box ticked and that is the development done. You could have the same trees planted in the same configurations and half the development of the country. There are people who produce guidance on trees.

I would encourage them to. There is a professional body representing local authority culture lists and those who work with trees and notaries have great affection for them and the great sensitivity to what is an appropriate thing to plant in the appropriate location. Guidance from that source might be very sensible and very valuable. I encourage that not I hope some box ticking. Letters have trees in the right places was not let us remember that they are good in some places, bad in others.

Let us have variety in the right place, let us have fewer mulberry trees perhaps overhanging the footway. But let us overhanging the footway. But let us not I hope be bureaucratic with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance from the ministry. I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should declare that I have been working for the past year or so with the horticultural trade association which represents association which represents environmentalists under the industry Parliament trust scheme. The industry is very keen to improve the quality of planting. I don't know if the noble Lord has seen the the noble Lord has seen the planting, we have seen houses also planting, we have seen houses also warehousing commercial Estates.

Far too often there are one or two exotic species which have no value exotic species which have no value at all for wildlife. The government of course could work with the industry and work with those experts to produce this guidance, so to produce this guidance, so wouldn't just be the government it would be a co-operative effort.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be a co-operative effort. I think that would be an indispensable approach if this were to go ahead. But I think to go ahead. But I think fundamentally we are forgetting local authorities and local planning local authorities and local planning department in this. The sort of department in this. The sort of thing that the lady refers to are exactly the sort of people who should be involved, you are the should be involved, you are the right source of information.

Or I think if the government is to be involved, it should be at a very considerable distance from the whole process, offering encouragement and advice, and like to support rather than providing the guidance itself. But otherwise I welcome everything else that has been said. I would be very happy to have further discussion in due course. discussion in due course.
18:22
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Only a verbal discussion. I thank the noble Lord Lord Gascoigne for tabling this amendment. The Chief Whip on our side is no longer present but I hear them say get on with it so I shall. I thank all those noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion and the government agrees that planting can help mitigate the environmental impacts of highways and existing ones more pleasant. However this amendment is not necessary as there is already relevant guidance on this matter produced by a number of relevant stakeholders, but local highway authorities and others should have regard to them.

This includes well-managed highways infrastructure Code of Practice, provides guidance for local authorities or managing highway networks. The design manual for roads and bridges, the manuals on streets, local authorities own street adoption and works guidance. Some local authorities go further and encourage local residents to look after street trees, including my own, and when I'm not in the chamber until late at night I am nurturing a small but growing tree in my locality by taking it a bucket of water every so often for it will be a pleasure to do it this evening we finish.

Planning applications for highway development under the Town & Country planning act 1990 are subject to mandatory biodiversity and we are currently consulting on the application of biodiversity gains for infrastructure projects with the aim of mitigating any environmental impacts. Requiring additional new guidance would be an administrative burden and would Millie duplicates the guidance that already exists. So I would kindly ask Lord Gascoigne to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
18:24
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the Minister and everyone who participated for sub it started on a high and slowly descended. I said many times in this chamber I respect him massively. He mentioned about five different rules or guidance is there but that is precisely the point why there should be some clear documentation that sets out what the different issues are and how you tackle it. I am grateful to my own backbenchers and that Greens and Lib Dems for their comments and support.

Baroness Bennett raises a perfect point which is about wildlife. She is often accused of neglecting things and the fact we have 2030 targets which will play a part in that. I'm conscious of time. My dear good friend Lord Moylan, there are various things I would say I will definitely take up on the offer to engage, three very quick things. Driving, sorry, trees do not improve your driving. Europe has more trees than we do. As a result it improves driving, does not improve the quality of the driver.

He mentioned his mulberry bush, but that is why this should be guidance on new developments. I was googling frantically what sort of tree Lord Moylan could be and the one I have found, I cannot put my finger on any one soon, but the great white oak is both big and majestic in many ways but it is also quite stubborn. So I say respectfully, let's have this journey, I will come and help him clean the Mulberry Bush. But for now I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is your Lordships pleasure that amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 61 not moved. Amendment 62 Baroness moved. Amendment 62 Baroness McIntosh not moved. My Lords we now come to the group of amendments come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 63. After

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 47, amendment 63. Thank you very much. I will speak fleet to the three amendments I have fleet to the three amendments I have in this group. Amendment 63 is about increasing solar panels on new increasing solar panels on new transport infrastructure. This could include new or refurbished include new or refurbished infrastructure or rail lines, bus and tram stations in depots, agent
18:27
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
roadbuilding or upgrade projects and other transport hubs. As a country we have so much to learn from others. Example, in Switzerland, they have just started a new scheme of installing solar panels on the actual railways. EV panels will be rolled out like carpet in between the tracks in one of their ones. Germany plans to install solar panels on motorways tapping into many potential sites to boost renewable energy for sub and France is trialling solar panels on its railway estate.

The European commission in a report in 2024 looked at the potential for large- scale deployment of vertical solar panels on Europe's major roads and railways. It concluded that the electricity generated would not only be cost-effective in electricity markets, but also serve as a viable alternative to fossil fuelled and transportation. Tapping solar PV energy along transport infrastructure can therefore significantly contribute to the EU's energy transition, and we should be doing the same here in the UK. Unless there are good examples of good practice, I mentioned that second reading Blackfriars and Denmark all rubbish stations, we must do more and that is why this amendment is table today.

Amendment 106 is a requirement for all new car parks to be required to include solar panels. As I highlighted that second reading, across the country there are vast expanses of roof space that sit idle, exposed to sunlight. Installing solar panels on car parks will generate clean energy, reduce grid pressure and power local EV chargers directly. And France has already mandated solar panels on large car parks. The government's recent consultation on solar panels feels like we are trying to catch up.

So this amendment will make this a reality. I hope the Minister will be able to support it. Finally amendment 68 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections to EV charging infrastructure. This includes, as I spoke about the earlier group, the need for a focus on commercial as well as private vehicles. I would like to thank, though she is not in her place, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for putting a name to this amendment. I look forward to the response of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister.!. Amendment proposed, after clause 47, insert the new clause is printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Majlis. My Lords, I rise briefly, since
18:29
18:31
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much support amendment 63 and 106. And will speak fearlessly and 106. And will speak fearlessly do it. Lord Moylan has already talked about this in previous It seems to me entirely sensible to put solar panels in places where there is the immediate local demand for electricity when it is sunny. When it is sunny, and to have solar panels along rail infrastructure, supplies a demand which is entirely local and indeed when the sun is out in a serious way the rail consumes extra electricity keeping the characters cool.

It is an entirely sensible place to put them. Car parks are excellent places to charge your car, and they are next do usually supermarkets or other places using electricity in the data. If we are going to generate solar electricity this is an entirely appropriate place to do it. I would go further than this, I would allow local authorities to have local schemes to encourage solar on all commercial roofs that would allow them to increase the level of business rates payable on those roofs that did not have solar.

It is ridiculous when you stand on hills above Eastbourne and you look at a couple of hundred hectares of commercial estates and there are no solar panels whatsoever on any of them. But they are all using electricity in the data. The difficulties arise from fractured ownership, from lease patterns, it's not easy to do. But if we produce substantial incentive that basically says to businesses you can either generate some solar on the space or you can pay into a fund to help us do other things elsewhere, if the payment is sufficiently high I think we will get a move to solar.

I think that would be a good idea. The alternative is we are seeing in Eastbourne is a large solar farm on an ancient marsh in the middle of town. Entirely destructive in visual terms, not at all helpful in terms of wildlife and the environment generally, it would be much better if we could have the same size solar farm on land that has already developed and entirely suitable for it. But we haven't got the right structures in place government to enable that and I would really like
18:35
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
For I speak to these amendments I declare my registered interests including shareholdings in companies including shareholdings in companies involved in renewable energy. These interests are not directly affected by the imminent under discussion. I want to thank Baroness Pidgeon for tabling these amendments so tabling these amendments so And for her ongoing commitment to And for her ongoing commitment to the U.K.'s decarbonisation ambitions in the transport sector. I first turned to amendment 63 which seeks to mandate the installation of solar panels and the construction of new panels and the construction of new transport structure and solar panels to be provided as part of the to be provided as part of the construction of all new aboveground car parks government is committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it's clear that solar energy will be crucial to achieving our mission.

crucial to achieving our mission. Clean power action plan calls for the rapid acceleration of solar deployment from allowing 18 deployment from allowing 18 gigawatts from April 2025 to 45 to 47 gigawatts by 2030. This is an 47 gigawatts by 2030. This is an ambitious mission which has enormous potential to create good jobs, protect bill payers, ensure energy security and reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuels markets. The volatile fossil fuels markets. The recently published solar roadmap includes over 70 actions for government and industry to take forward to help deliver this ambition by removing barriers to deployment of all types of solar.

We recognise car parks have the potential to provide significant renewable electricity generation, shelter for cars and drivers and localised power for EV charging points. This year the government published a call for evidence to assess the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies a new Over a certain size we are currently analysing evidence provided by the sector and conducting the essential costs and benefit analysis needed to understand the impact of any policy to mandate the provision of solar new car parks was to having not yet concluded this process it would not be appropriate at this stage to include this amendment in the bill however the government is considering this proposal very carefully and will explore ways to achieve this intention including future legislation if the evidence supports this conclusion.

It's also the case that we don't currently have the evidence-based to support requiring all transport structure to include solar panel installation. We have not yet engaged with the industry to fully understand the potential impact of this amendment or conduct the necessary cost benefit analysis to determine if this would be appropriate to install solar on all different types of transport structure set out in the proposed amendment will stop the governance committed to achieving our mission through significant solar deployment across the country following the publication of the roadmap the solar Council will be established to bring together the sole industry UK government and other relevant parties of the council will work to secure, enable and accelerate the deployment of solar at all scales and identify emerging opportunities, realigning priorities and action as needed.

I hope Baroness Pidgeon note the ongoing work the government is doing in this area which will conclude before any consideration of legislative intervention takes place. I therefore kindly ask to beg leave to withdraw her amendments. Turning to amendment 68 also tabled by Baroness Pidgeon, the government recognises the importance of accelerating grid connections for electricity demand projects including electric vehicle charging as well as for generation projects. This recognition lies at the heart of the reforms we announced in the industrial strategy which includes Regulatory processes and accelerate connections for strategically important projects.

While the government fully acknowledges the critical role of freight and logistics in national supply chain security and decarbonisation targets it would not be prudent to enshrined in legislation a preference for one sector as this would inevitably mean a deeper thing equally important sectors listed in the industrial strategies such as advanced manufacturing. The wider supply chain for clean energy projects data centres and more. This is why we have also announced the connections accelerated service which will support strategically important projects across all priority sectors accelerate the connection dates.

The Department of Transport will play a key role in helping to shape the framework for identifying these vital projects. I also like to take this opportunity to highlight the suite of initiatives the government is pursuing in support of the electrification of freight logistics and the broader transport sector. This includes our ongoing efforts in national and regional strategic energy planning. We are working to support infrastructure investment head of need to ensure we anticipate demand. By planning strategically we can deliver robust futureproof infrastructure and support our broader decarbonisation and economic ambitions, furthermore the Department of Transport is actively encouraging stakeholders in the transport sector to look ahead to consider their future electricity consider their future electricity Strategic planning processes.

By doing so will create a more comprehensive unresponsive energy network, one able to meet the evolving requirements of our nation transport system. I would also like to highlight the work of the freight energy forum led by the Department energy forum led by the Department for Transport this forum together transport and energy stakeholders from across the country providing a platform for knowledge sharing and collaboration. By working closely together we can form future action and ensure our sector remains agile and ensure our sector remains agile and well-equipped for an electrified future of trust the House will appreciate the rationale for approach and recognise the government's determination to deliver a balanced strategic and forward-looking energy infrastructure for the nation.

Just in the particular points which the noble Baroness mentioned a number of countries as did Baroness Bennett, countries as did Baroness Bennett, The noble Lady quoted the potential for solar canopies in Pokhara parks is significant we are looking carefully at international best practice including what France has introduced before committing to any policy including mandating we believe it is right to properly engage with industry and stakeholders to better understand the impact and see whether government information intervention is needed. Particular a couple of points noble Lords alluded to in deploying solar on rail lines and Railtrack solar could be this feasible solution particularly in urban areas where the track is electrified as there will already be in action.

However there are some obstacles that may inhibit the deployment of technology the challenge of good connections in rural areas in addition kit required to convert electricity from solar to usable electricity for trains which may be expensive. Finally Baroness Bennett talked about car parks in relation to agricultural land, this covenant is committed to a solar revolution that enhances energy security was protecting U.K.'s by the best and agricultural spaces, car parks do offer an opportunity to utilise spaces for solar generation but must engage with industry and gather broad evidence-based to overcome potential structural financial barriers to widespread solar canopy.

For the reasons outlined previously I kindly ask the noble Baroness to beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw these amendments. I'd like to thank those members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank those members who have spoken in this group and I would like to thank the Minister for his detailed answer, you talk about his detailed answer, you talk about solar roadmap, we want alongside , , rail, , rail, tram, , rail, tram, bus , rail, tram, bus map , rail, tram, bus map we , rail, tram, bus map we want , rail, tram, bus map we want to , rail, tram, bus map we want to see across transport infrastructure, hope to start to see some progress in due course particularly looking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

internationally, with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Is a gorgeous pledge that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 64 not moved. We now come to a group of moved. We now come to a group of amendments getting with amendment 65 already debated Lord Hunt, not already debated Lord Hunt, not moved. Amendment 66 Baroness Pidgeon moved. Amendment 66 Baroness Pidgeon not moved -- amendment. Amendment 67 not moved -- amendment. Amendment 67 and amendment 68 not moved.

That and amendment 68 not moved. That brings us to the group amendment beginning with amendment 69, after clause 47 amendment 69 Lord Jamieson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jamieson. I rise to speak on the two amendments of my name relating to utility works on roads. Constant disruption to our roads from roadworks in the majority of cases related to utility works and huge frustration toward drivers. Often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact, it also impacts householders, pedestrians and cyclists caught up in these were impacted by the noise and fumes of
18:44
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
idling cars. Local businesses are also impacted from loss of business as customers stay away to avoid excessive journey time. When these were major roads excessive traffic were major roads excessive traffic on smaller roads. The frustration of drivers doubly so when they seek no drivers doubly so when they seek no work being carried out as sometimes work being carried out as sometimes that is for good reason, but often it is for the convenience of the contractor, I give the example of contractor, I give the example of traffic lights put out on a Friday afternoon.

For roadworks starting on the Monday, completed on the the Monday, completed on the Thursday, but the traffic lights remove the following Monday, so three or four days of work but the road impacted for 10 days. While we road impacted for 10 days. While we recognise the utility and other works are essential they should be done in a way that minimises done in a way that minimises disruption. While councils and governments have sought to address this through issues like permitting regimes, councils often do this proactively, enforcing these to keep roadworks to the permitted time, it does not stop utility companies and does not stop utility companies and contractors seeking an extended contractors seeking an extended time.

There's also land rental scheme under the 2012 regulations. There are four County Council's and Transport for London have applied for this. However it is a cumbersome process and with the exception of London can only be applied to five to 10% of roads and only those that are highly sensitive. As I mentioned the cumbersome process involving lots of consultation specific identification of roads and applying to the Secretary of State needing to draw up an SI and so forth. There is a better way, there should be a national scheme with appropriate protections and so forth for also enabling a wider range of highways to be included, that councils can simply opt into.

This amendment would not only reduce the time our roads are held up I will roadworks, it would also reduce your Chrissie. Moving to amendment 70 1C -- bureaucracy full stop we too often see what should be a good road service pockmarked with various works following utility works. Currently utility providers only need to provide two or three year guarantee for their work moving to a five year guarantee will ensure that reinstatement could be done to a far As the Minister recognised earlier on today in his comments, often these are very poor standard.

This will also facilitate monitoring and ultimately would mean better roads, reduced need for maintenance, and better for the environment. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause of 47 insert the new clause is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Martial list. I declared my interest in detail some hours ago and they relate also
18:46
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
some hours ago and they relate also to this amendment. I noble Friend Baroness Scott fi -- Baroness Scott is abroad and asked me to speak to is abroad and asked me to speak to the amendment. It regards litter on the Strategic Road Network. The amendment asks question about which roads are the responsibility of the National Highways. Due to previous legislation, National Highways only has response ability for litter on all motorways on some of its A roads when my noble Friend was representing Sussex, she witnessed a conflict in trying to get National Highways to work effectively with the council on litter, on the A 14.

the council on litter, on the A 14. Most litter can only be collected when National Highways are closing the road which is often overnight and does not really fit in with local council practices on litter. I believe the points she makes are valid. My noble Friend has rightly noted it is difficult from experience for National Highways, local authorities to coordinate and get this work done efficiently. There are challenges, as to who is the principal contractor, who put to to work safely, who holds who to account when litter picking needs to happen prior to grass cutting, and customer complaint management responses etc.

Having the responsibility of litter across the entire Strategic Road Network sits wholly with National Highways seemingly making complete sense. As I know the Minister has lengthy experience, the challenge of maintaining the SRN would be exacerbated. I'm not entirely sure that we have not addressed the issue of monies that will be redirected from local authorities to National Highways to offset the additional service demands and risks. Litter picking is a schedule of rates activity so would require new and additional funding. And it could not be absorbed solely through efficiency gains.

I will conclude by saying litter picking is of course the current necessity but it is reasonable to consider it is a waste of taxpayers money. Working as a community to dissuade litter behaviour through campaigns and technology should perhaps be the continued primary focus. I ask the Minister, how do we accelerate? How do we use technology? How do we change legislation? How can we affect the level of prosecution for littering, which then could raise monies for funding little picking activity until ultimately the problem ultimately ceases to exist.

With 100% Strategic Road Network coverage with CCTV and intended outcome, and with the help of AI, hope we can move this industry challenge forward. I believable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, lane rental has worked well in London it should be rolled out across the rest of England.
18:49
18:50
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, in respect of lane rental schemes, the governed is committed to reducing disruption from street works on improving the efficiency of our road network. Lane rental is an important tool to help highways authorities remove the impact of works taking place. But it is important to recognise that Lane rental schemes are not, may not be suitable for every area. Many local authorities don't experience the level of congestion that can justify the administrative and financial burdens operating such a scheme.

However the government does recognise the value of empowering local leaders. That is why we have consulted on evolving approval powers for Lane rentals to mayoral combined authorities. We will be publishing results in due course. I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. So far as litter is concerned, I thank the noble Lord for speaking to the amendment. I agree with him that we must find the best way of tackling this problem. I know it is in that spirit that the amendment has been tabled.

At present, National Highways is responsible for collection on motorways. There are other roads for which National Highways is responsible for maintenance but it is responsible to have local authorities for litter collection. The question is whether we should relieve them of the duties and transfer them to National Highways. It sounds like a simple solution, but it is in fact a bit more complicated than that. The collaboration methodology works well, and as an example, National Highways looks for opportunities for collection to take place safely, at times roads are closed for other reasons like resurfacing or maintenance was the and partnership arrangements provide the best way of dealing with the Strategic Road Network.

We expect National Highways and the local authorities to work closely together. I also thank noble Lords Jameson for extending the guarantee period, and he and I both recognise that high quality reinstatement is highly desirable. It is important to note that under the existing specification and the higher guidance, guarantee period only begins once reinstatement has been completed to the required standard. 2023, a performance-based inspection regime was introduced which meant utility complete with higher defect or failure rate are subject to more frequent inspections.

And as they pay for each inspection this creates a strong financial incentive to maintain high standards. We are closely monitoring recent changes in Scotland where the guarantee period has been extended to six years, to assess whether it leads to improved standards before considering any changes in England. Those reasons outlined I request the noble Lords I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper withdraw the amendment. Finally Lord Liddle, will now be reaching the end of his journey to Carlisle and I rather celebrate that noble Lords have come on the journey for this part of the bill by remaining in the chamber.

I wish all those who stayed this long a happy recess.
18:53
18:54
18:55
18:56
18:57
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page