Lords Chamber

Monday 15th September 2025

(began 3 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: UK environmental impact of failure to reach agreement on a Global Plastics Treaty
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper.
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: Cost caps for landlords in the social and private rented sectors to meet Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards
-

I beg leave to ask the question standing on my name on the order paper. At the same time, I declare my interest in the private sector with Bucks.
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:22
None Portrait Business of the House
-

We We now We now come We now come to We now come to some We now come to some instruments previously debated in grand previously debated in grand committee. Criminal Justice Act and one other motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House, I beg leave to raise the motion standing in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name. The question is it they agreed to unblock. As many as of that opinion, unblock. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Not content." Baroness Hayman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say, "Not content." Baroness Hayman. I beg to move that the motion standing in my name on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paper be approved. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." to the opinion, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Not content." The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, say, "Not content." The contents have it. I meant 2025 and three other motions. I beg to move the motion standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my name on the order paper. The question is the four motions be agreed to unblock. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." to the contrary, say, "Not content." The contents have it. Hazards in Social Housing 2025 and one other motion, Baroness Taylor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the leave of the House, I beg to move the motion standing in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper unblock. The question is the motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion be moved on block. The contents have moved on block. The contents have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved on block. The contents have it. House to take committee on the Planning And Infrastructure Bill. I beg to move that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as of that
15:24
15:26
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want 185 -- amendment 185.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want 185 -- amendment 185.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment 185N

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment 185N and 185P. The truth is that we are having difficulty regulating the water usage of AI. What produce is water usage of AI. What produce is expected to rise by 2050 by 20 50 x expected to rise by 2050 by 20 50 x 62 TW hours, enough to power 50 million homes. There are some estimates it could go up to 70 estimates it could go up to 70 million 70,000,000 kWh by 2050.

AI million 70,000,000 kWh by 2050. AI is exceptionally power-hungry. It is at the time when we are trying to reach clean power. Against the reach clean power. Against the background, overall to city use is background, overall to city use is expected to double by 2050. Many big tech companies are moving back from clean-energy targets and Google is one example. There are issues with the moderation of substantial energy in terms of the demands of AI.

I believe that we must make provision to require that AI is used for public by ensuring the power of the bill is applied to find ways we can drive national energy savings and efficiency. AI is a powerful tool used to drive energy efficiency, for example, by enhancing the electrical grid, improving efficiency, and improving forecasts and integrations for renewable energy generation and unlocking substantial transmission capacity savings without damaging parallels. -- Without need for new apparel lines.

It could also improve the transport sector and any number of industrial processes requiring large amounts of energy. There is potential for huge savings by employing AI. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a national AI energy efficiency strategy and this would establish projections of energy use as material planning considerations and it would minded developers to take into account supply and efficiency measures and applications. The measure aims to ensure surplus energy resources from data centres can be fed by the international grid at times of urgent need.

I meant 185 -- amendment 185P also looks at what produce of AI. It can use as much water as 100,000 homes and 8.5 million homes in the UK are currently subject to hosepipe bans with seven out of bans with 7/70 regions expected to have water regions expected to have water stress by 2030 and 12 by 2030. Defra project it will be 5 million L per day by 2050. Facing a warmer rod, it is essential that national policy has a clear efficiency strategy, enforces targets for alternative cooling technologies and assures planning authorities vigourously access water availability in Brazil just before applying for new developments.

I welcome the newly established AI Energy Council at the work being done but, to date, this is an evolving project without any clear outcomes. I asked, will the Government at the very least mandate that the AI Energy Efficiency Council formulates clear policies and formally reports on these matters within a certain timeframe? I also asked the government to give a clear commitment to energy and water efficiency strategy for AI and to develop a national energy policy statement on AI energy use.

Turning to the other amendments, I move to the other amendments, I move Two 183R asnd 185S Two 183R asnd 185S in Two 183R asnd 185S in this Two 183R asnd 185S in this group Two 183R asnd 185S in this group in mining. This was included in the statement of objectives after a cross-party campaign in both houses of Parliament. I also welcome the commitment that has been given in the other place that this government will work to ensure the right to supply locally which will enable community energy schemes to sell the clean power that they generate directly to local homes and businesses.

I would welcome an update on how this is progressing, if possible. I amendment 185R seeks to establish whether new communities can do this through stories, direct heating schemes, or ensuring surplus energy remains available within the community, rather than disappearing into the grid. Design community energy projects not only decarbonise but build resilience, reduce bills, generate a direct sense of ownership generate a direct sense of ownership I would like to see our seaside towns and communities benefit from local regeneration schemes.

I have been careful in my work, I have put a duty, so this is not an enforcement, it is designed to be flexible. Amendment 185 is complemented by recognising the good intentions at planning stage that are insufficient with our planning guidance and support. The Secretary of State will be required to publish community energy guidance within 18 months and to keep it updated every three years. Even when planning consent exists in the development, barriers still remain, local people try to supply energy directly to each other and at present they struggle with this proportionate licensing and costs that may be trivial to parish and neighbourhood groups and this amendment would enable them to provide clear measures in local supply licences, clarify and affordable terms for customers and make sure processes are not burdensome for the very groups they rely on.

Together these amendments help to create a more energy-based distribution and participatory system where local people are active partners and beneficiaries. Working with and supporting them to allow them to better benefit from the energy transition helps to maintain the public support for that transition as we head towards night zero. I also recognise the work the Government is actively doing in this area and remain open to further discussions working with alternative methods of progressing these matters. I picked him.
15:34
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 52 insert the new clause as printed on the emotional list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the amendments near made by the Noble Lord Russell made by the Noble Lord Russell because this is a particular area, thinking of the different utilities to which the Noble Lord refers. to which the Noble Lord refers. Energy should, in effect, it is unlimited in what resources are available and what this is available and what this is concerning to the number of concerning to the number of communities is about how all of a sudden they are popping up around the country and lots of planning applications are going in alongside applications are going in alongside those from solar farms and other significant uses of data, including significant uses of data, including data centres and other AI infrastructure, so, as a consequence, I do not know of the Government has this information.

I would be grateful if the Minister would be grateful if the Minister does that they could perhaps write to us, but what proportion of grade 1, two, three land is now being 1, two, three land is now being taken up with panic applications due taken up with panic applications due to not only solar farms all the AI -related infrastructure to which the amendments refer. In terms of amendments refer. In terms of amendment 185, again, this unlike electricity, unlike energy, water is very much a constrained utility.

The image of water available to keep powering homes, powering businesses, and all the other activities including energy stations is significantly under threat and it is one of the reasons why particularly with farming we have one of the most significant contractions in the amount of water available to that sector just into years time, so there is something to be said here about how we think about the amount of water that is going to be used by a number of AI data centres alike. The at the moment there seems to be no thinking about how we prioritise the different industrial sectors that we have right across our country.

No aware, although I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, nor are we necessarily considering this and planning guidance were although there would guidance were although there would be a wider thing if this was available but this is a really important activity and whether or not this goes into the face of the bill the Government should be absolutely looking at when I did the plan for water making sure the clean supply of water and that was the intention of thinking ahead I do not think we had really given that much thought to this sort of consumption.

And to give you an example of this was actually one of the reasons for its major delays, the water company responsible simply could not guarantee the amount of water to be used for the construction and operation of the nuclear energy plant. That has then led to them having to think about desalination plants, about other aspects of reservoirs. But at that moment there are constraints about how some of these things can be spread across sectors considering the generation for the nuclear energy station.

It is absolutely imperative that we think about whereas this could be. To be serious in terms of the amount of building that has been planned for this no other business has been given its consent. No other business I believe is eligible to ask for any of that water in terms of the growth and its businesses in part of the country, so this is a genuinely critical area to look at, that is why we welcome the amendment put forward by the Noble Lord today and we hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and I would encourage the noble Elton
15:38
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I suspect that many noble Lords across your logic terms are Lords across your logic terms are not yet fully aware of the growth, skill, and significance of what we call AI related infrastructure. The hardware and software required to create, train, and deploy AI powered solutions and applications. If we are to fully harness the benefits of AI, unlocking these new efficiencies AI, unlocking these new efficiencies fuelling economic growth and creating opportunities for creating opportunities for infrastructure investment we must be mindful of the practical impact that come with it as both the noble Earl and my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey have pointed out most of the two key have pointed out most of the two key areas being energy use and as the noble Earl Lord Russell has noble Earl Lord Russell has highlighted the sheer computational power required for advanced AI power required for advanced AI models is immense, leading to rising energy demand, equally the systems energy demand, equally the systems necessary for AI data centres involving significant usage.

These are important considerations and it makes sense that our planning system and national guidance should take them into account to ensure the them into account to ensure the infrastructure growth is both infrastructure growth is both sustainable and resilient. I do not believe it is the noble Earls intention that these amendments but rather that they can call for statutory recognition for these impacts within the planning system supported by clear national strategy guidance and reporting requirements. That seems to me both proportionate and sensible.

Turning to the noble Earls other amendments and 1.5 S, these rightly highlight the important role of climate change that planning a develop movement must play in addressing it and the emphasis on ensuring that sustainable built environment is both timely and welcome and I wish to place on record our appreciation at that sentiment. However, at the same time, it is to strike a balance, supporting sustainability while avoiding overly burdensome requirements or excessive regulation that could impair housing delivery or economic growth.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness the Minister how the Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns. Can I thank the noble Earl for his amendments on AI infrastructure? his amendments on AI infrastructure? And community energy products. I think the noble Earl is absolutely think the noble Earl is absolutely right to highlight the issue of water and power required by data water and power required by data centres. Before I give my response to him I should say we need to be to him I should say we need to be very proud of our AI in this country.

We have got the third- largest AI market in the world. The largest AI market in the world. The AI sectors valued at £72 million in 2024 and projected to be worth over 2024 and projected to be worth over 800 billion by 2024 and projected to be worth over 800,000,000,000 x 20 be worth over 800,000,000,000 x 20 35 and over £44 billion of investment was announced for data centres in the UK since July 2024 which is a very good record. Of course that noble Earl raises the course that noble Earl raises the very important issues that run alongside this and turning first amendment 185N the very important issues that run alongside this and issues that run alongside this and turning first amendment 185NU will be aware that we had an in-depth discussion at committee last week on overheating and climate change and I overheating and climate change and I appreciate the intent behind this was considering the matter in the context of emerging AI technology, during my time as a minister and until last week I had the responsibility for AI in my department it has moved on now but I had the opportunity to see some of the real opportunities that AI presents and it has the potential to transform our public services, secure growth and raise living standards, not least to support our colleagues in planning to help them move things much more quickly.

And it is the government's ambition to harness it for the good of our country and that is why we are actively monitoring the data sector and publishing the first estimate of datacentre capacity in May 2025 which includes measures indicating energy use, some datacentre applications will have the option of being consented through the nationally significant projects the regime officials from the Department of science and during the process of developing a national policy statement to help guide this process that will also be treated importantly as a materially significant consideration in the local authority led planning process.

The statement will include an assessment of the sustainability of the sector and we are aiming for the publication in 2026. The Government has also as the noble Earl mentioned establish the energy Council co-chaired by the Secretary of State to provide expert insight on the energy needs of AI and the role of AI in an efficient and sustainable energy system. To do this, the council has established a sustainability working group that will explore options to accelerate the development, excuse me, of low- carb and energy solutions to power AI to reduce carbon emissions from AI and metrics to support energy efficiency.

Turning to a man in 1858 which is focused on the water use of AI infrastructure the Government is committed to reducing the use of public water supply by 20% by 2030/38 with an interim target of 9% of non-household production by the 31st of by 31 March. And pass this commitment DEFRA is working with the Department first innovation technology at the Department of and the environmental agency to determine how much water demand in data centres can be approved. Datacentre is use a variety of cooling systems with only a small proportion using entirely water based ones.

Datacentre can use water very intensively as has already been highlighted. Particularly in terms of peak demand hotter periods, in summer 2025 the environment agency conducted a survey with the
15:44
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
datacentre sector through techUK the trade association of datacentre is to gain a better understanding of current water needs. As set out, the current water needs. As set out, the Government is developing a national policy statement to go datacentre planning applications and the water efficiency of data centres will form part of this assessment, including options for water reuse and nonparty options for water reuse and nonparty water systems. The noble Baroness water systems. The noble Baroness coffee asked me about the use of agricultural land for data centres.

agricultural land for data centres. The NPPF is and the future land use framework will be very clear that grade 1, two and three of the cultural land should be protected cultural land should be protected and only used when there is no alternative that is already set out in planning policy. Turning now to in planning policy. Turning now to amendment 185 from that Noble Lord Russell which would require planning authorities to consider and support authorities to consider and support the inclusion of community energy the inclusion of community energy projects in new developments strive with the noble Earl that renewable energy regeneration in households will be a discussion from this will be a discussion from this morning is a vital approach to help cut bills for families, boost our national and security, and deliver national and security, and deliver the clean energy mission.

On the practicalities of increasing more energy renewable generation and develop movement site and pleased to say my department is working very closely with those on the future home standard. The Future Homes Standard will include renewable electricity generation on the majority of new homes through routes like rooftop solar. I would therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary. The Government is also championing community and local energy through the Local Power Plan community energy projects will be empowered bringing real and tangible Great British Energy will increase capacity to build a pipeline of projects in local communities across the UK.

Turning to amendment 185S which supports the provision of energy from departments. I see noble Lord me remember, community energy is explicitly referenced in the Great British Energy act, meaning Great British Energy may facilitate, encourage and participate in projects which benefit local authorities and I reassure you noble Lord be planned will empower local communities for projects that bring benefit to the area and we will take steps to better enable energy trading to lower bills and ensure local communities benefit from local energy.

That is why DESNZ is working with Ofgem, Great British Energy and other providers to best determine how to match local support with how to match local support with local demand. I believe this will support the sector in the years to come and so I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newtown should be preferred sites

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for data centres. -- New towns. Lord Lucas makes an important point about reducing energy as point about reducing energy as created by the senses and we are exploring that. This new towns, it's important that the task force has important that the task force has the chance to do their work. They the chance to do their work. They will be subject to the planning process, as will all other applicants, when we put them applicants, when we put them forward.

We are moving to grade 3 agricultural land and I hope other agricultural land and I hope other areas will come forward. They are very important and we cannot do without them, that is for sure. We must consider where they might be located and I think the Land-Use Register will give us a good indication.
15:49
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
indication.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I think these amendments are important and he was right to bring them forward and I thank all of those who have thank all of those who have supported them and that includes Baroness Coffey and the Conservative Baroness Coffey and the Conservative Baroness Coffey and the Conservative Frontbench. I welcome the fact that the National Policy Statement will be forthcoming and I welcome that I be forthcoming and I welcome that I look forward to seeing that. There look forward to seeing that.

There is some detail still missing which is embedding the idea of energy efficiency within the planning system and making sure we hold big tech companies to account. It is tech companies to account. It is easy for them to consume energy and that causes enough problems as we transition to clean power. I think transition to clean power. I think the government needs a system so that if they allow them to build that if they allow them to build data centres, the government gets data centres, the government gets access to them to drive energy efficiency and I am suggesting a efficiency and I am suggesting a mechanism to do that.

It may not be the right mechanism but I think there is a conversation there about there is a conversation there about being able to use the power of AI to look at best lodging in renewables to best drive energy efficiency. I will leave that as a problem to think about moving forward. I welcome the on community energy in the objectives of the Great British Energy Bill and the fact that further guidance is coming on that. I want to look at the efforts that are being made to ensure communities can not only generate back to benefit from the power that they generate.

That is central to ensuring public support stays with all of us who support the transition and ensuring the next wave of energy is one that is not done to but for people in a way that they can benefit from the transition. I look forward to that and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. If it is your lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn, the amendment is withdrawn. I meant 185Q, Lord Lucas, not moved.

I mixed 185Q, Lord Lucas, not moved. I mixed 185 SA, already debated, not moved. Lord Hunt, not moved. 185 SC and SE, not moved. 185SE, Lord Jamieson, not moved. Lord Chris, not moved. 185 moved. Lord Chris, not moved. 185 SG, not. 185 SH, Baroness Coffey. SG, not. 185 SH, Baroness Coffey.
15:52
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I start by declaring my own grade 2 listed property. This is intended to be an amendment and a deregulation measure and reef heard the Chancellor has appointed Planning and Infrastructure Adviser and the advice from the Ministry is not enough the Chancellor and Rachel Reeves is keen to have fewer regulators to adopt this approach of the regulation. In England, there are about 400,000 there are about 400,001- anti-star -- there are around 100,000 one Canstar and 2.5% that are with one.

Often, when it comes to thinking about what a grade 2 listed building is, but I did my research, I randomly sampled 100 properties on the Historic England database for grade 2 and only six had any internal features but, nevertheless, the guidance is that one has to apply for consent if there is concern, not just about printing but about whether it might change aspects of character internally or indeed any original materials. By doing research, and we looked at a sample of 100 properties, but the ONS lifts 1000 as a sample size for surveys, and I think it's fair to say very few are considered to have produced worthy of resisting.

As a consequence, a lot of approaches made into exploring consent and often people will ask for forgiveness rather than permission in case they are reported if they have heard that internal work has been done. However, I think the point I'm trying to make as I understand we are seeing more consideration of internal features for 2-star like prominent fireplaces, prominent staircases, a lot of things that are relevant. But for a lot of the grade-2 listed buildings, there is a focus on the external and my own is thatched and has a thing called Flemish bond left on the brickwork.

You could only see it on the chimney which is about however high it is. It is those sorts of features that I think this would be a simple approach of the regulation that would not harm the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heritage of the country and therefore I beg to move. I meant proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I meant proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

52, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall list. I am afraid I'm not completely in tune with my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, and I hope that she will forgive me. I agree that maintenance and repairs are essential and should and repairs are essential and should not be held up in any way but I not be held up in any way but I would urge caution with some would urge caution with some internal changes. In recent years, a minimal approach has gained popularity and with grade 2 popularity and with grade 2 buildings, this may mean ripping out articles of significant importance and ridding the character of listed buildings.

I acknowledge that there buildings. I acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck but sometimes with modern living, sometimes with modern living, removing a wall or making small changes can be beneficial but I would ask that this be another site and I draw the attention of the and I draw the attention of the House that buildings of 1850 and before get pretty much automatic before get pretty much automatic listing but there are many lovely houses built after this, especially from 1850-1900, and they do not qualify because they are not considered special.

They have no real potential and even where they real potential and even where they fall in conservation areas, only the faade is preserved. We are losing internal features of many historically interesting buildings. We need to put a brake on this because, once gone, we will never get them back.
15:57
15:57
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
retaining and protecting listed retaining and protecting listed buildings and as the listings are free, as we debated earlier today, that helps those who own listed buildings. There is no cost to it. Heritage Planning Officers know that Heritage Planning Officers know that some buildings need to be used if they are not lying empty and indicate. That is OK as long as it indicate. That is OK as long as it goes through the application for listed building consent.

I know that these are large chambers but one example, there is agreed to listed example, there is agreed to listed building which is a former chapel. building which is a former chapel. building which is a former chapel. -- grade 2. It is one of the United Reform chapels in the North and it Reform chapels in the North and it was altered to become an Indian restaurant and allegedly the largest restaurant and allegedly the largest in the world with room for 1000 people.

Subsequent alterations to the access, inevitably with lots of stairs to reach the front were given permission. This enabled local people to know that I treasure building is not being changed without the appropriate permissions. Even if these changes are relatively minor in comparison to the structure on the whole, nevertheless, constant minor changes could add up to a big change which would not be appropriate and could compromise the integrity of the listing. As perhaps you can tell from the comments I have made, I am not a supporter of the amendments that have been the amendments that have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend Baroness Coffey raises an interesting issue an
16:00
16:00
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Baroness Coffey for the amendment which would remove the requirement to get listed building consent for Intel repairs, maintenance to grade 2 listed building. A cautionary tale, we do not have many old buildings in my constituency and listed ones are even rarer and there was an 18th- century farmhouse and the builder in a planning application and we try quickly to get a listing for it because, in the context of my time, it is an unusual feature.

We could not and the reason was because the internal alterations to the building where so extensive that the listing people held that it was no longer representative of the properties that the listing would have I while I appreciate this I I while I appreciate this I must I while I appreciate this I must be careful not to inadvertently remove protections for our heritage assets. The Government is committed to the protection of the historic environment which is an irreplaceable resource, so these important assets can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life for existing and future generations.

Listed building framework offers legal protection to buildings of special architectural or historic interest in many of these listings including those with features that the noble Baroness was mentioning, staircases, fireplace, plasterwork, and internal changes like exposing brickwork, can erode the historic character of the building if not carefully considered. That's why we believe it is important that changes including internal work should continue to be subject to this. Without this vital scrutiny we risk losing a damaging some of our most important heritage assets.

The process of applying for listed building consent encourages owners to design any alteration sensibly and we have given local authorities powers to create listed building consent orders locally that would allow them to grant a general list of letting consent of specific types of work across their area and we have seen examples of this including in Cheshire East which grant permission for working, including, for example, relocating loft hatches in their area. We think that these tools are a useful opportunity to streamline the consent process where there is specific work in that area and I would add I have also set up a regular run for the first meeting at the regular roundtable with DCMS colleagues and many that support the need of historic houses, so we will continue to talk without about how we move this forward, but for all those reasons county ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think Noble Lord that participated I would say gently to Lady Pinnock I specifically did not
16:03
16:05
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor. I first begged to move amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I first begged to move amendments J186, 187, 200, 201, 202, and two or three, that relate to the relationship between develop movement corporations. Development corporations are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. As we continue to deliver the many homes that this country desperately need to be expected number of development corporations to increase in the coming years. Different types of development corporations that been treated in law to respond to the circumstances of that time. This has created ambiguity between the current legislative framework so that multiple development corporations could be created within the same locality that risks creating confusion and delivery of the key strategic projects which can be unhelpful and frustrating.

As the intention of our reforms in the bill is to create a clear and more flexible robust development framework I believe that these amendments are necessary. This is because they will set out the relationship between different types of corporations by removing any doubt over decision-making. These will create a backstop so that if following consultation essentially led Corporation or a locally led develop and Corporation this part will automatically become part of the area. The same would apply for the mayoral development Corporation that would have the same power over a locally led development Corporation.

Hope noble Lords understand why the amendment is necessary and I begged him that they be accepted by this House. Before I respond to other amendments in this group it would be hopeful to listen to the views of noble Lords, so I will reserve any comment on them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until the winding up. Beg to move. Amendment proposed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 93 page 122, line 26, after clause 93 page 122, line 26, after 1B, insert, as inserted by section 171 of the levelling up regulations 171 of the levelling up regulations 2003. The question is that this
16:07
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to speak to amendment 206 a, 351Z a, and 362 in this group, a, 351Z a, and 362 in this group, also related to the mayoral development Corporation. Because I development Corporation. Because I think we are supportive of what the Minister is proposing an amendment Minister is proposing an amendment 186, I think it is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between the corporations, hierarchy between the corporations, if the Government established the corporation that trumps the development Corporation and the development Corporation and the locally led Corporation I have an locally led Corporation I have an additional, I hope, helpful issue additional, I hope, helpful issue raised in my amendment.

Before I get to that can I just say the to that can I just say the underlining purpose of the develop movement corporations in part four of the bill is to give the nursery of the bill is to give the nursery development corporations the scope to engage not just in regeneration to engage not just in regeneration but in development, so that the mayoral develop movement corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements as urban extension and in new sites. And I think that is helpful also.

Of course, but we don't have in this hierarchy of corporations is the availability for local authorities to propose locally led corporations on the same basis as the Government appears to do so which was in the levelling up regeneration act and is not and has not yet with the exception of one of the accountability measures been in that section, has not been brought into force, unless the Minister tells me otherwise, and I understand it is not the government's intention to bring further provisions of the regeneration act on locally led corporations into force.

Just for the avoidance of doubt and if I am wrong about that I would be most grateful if the Minister would tell us in response to that debate. And members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled amendments to a four and 205 back in July. The purpose of which was to give the mayors access to the same powers to establish and propose since the Government needs to establish to propose mayoral development corporations as are available under the act and the Mayor of London.

Which is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers but they are established since the act generally under Statutory Instruments, some of which have given mayors similar powers to that there London but there are often gaps, the pressure of time on these debates, the pressure of examining precisely which gaps would be identified for which merits. It does not matter. The point is that by amendments to a four and 205 for the objective of giving that mayors the same powers as are available to the London mayor.

I then found when the Government published the English and community empowerment bill in The Other Place that clause 36 of schedule 17 think it is on the bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that under those circumstances there was no merit in continuing to push amendment to offer unto or five so I continued to push them and it further struck me that if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English Devolution Bill it will run to a slower timetable than this.

Therefore amendment to all six which would bring in to the bill the schedule in 3517 is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the government's of the English Devolution Bill act community empowerment bill, so it would have the same effect i.e. Give mayors generally the same powers as others but it would do so in this bill and instead of waiting until sometime next year I think we can be confident given that this is the government's number one priority and we will debate into the night if we have to I think we can be confident that we can reach the statute book this year.

Amendment 362 based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions to bills we have passed in force requires that it be brought into force within two months after the passing of this act. I think we are looking at the only part of next year having the powers. Why is this important? Because we are already beyond the point at which the new task force said that they would publish their recommendations. They said in their interim report that they would publish the final report in the summer.

It is definitely not know and gather summer. So, when they do so and I am hoping the Minister will be able to tell a stable do so soon because there is a degree of planning with it not being published and benefiting delivering on the objectives to build more homes than we publish that sooner rather than later. I hope that their New Towns Taskforce will publish very shortly that this bill will secure more this year, ideally, end of November, and therefore by the end of January with the inclusion of this amendment to all six a on schedule that mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.
16:14
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 195 into our probing amendment to stand part of clause 93. Starting with amendment 1958 I would be full if the noble Baroness the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows the development Corporation to, and I quote, do anything necessary for the purposes, incidental purposes, of the new town. How was such a widely defined and safeguarded in its use and I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.

Turning to clause 93 more broadly, I should like to make it clear that we are supportive of developing corporations. Our concern is to understand fully how they are intended to function under this ill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing. May I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations? Given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple none continuous sites as Mac and an ability that will be no doubt taking on a greater significance with the fans of devolution.

How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? And what safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or to avoid dilutive accountability? Particularly in the context of local Government reorganisation. This question seems especially Pershing in light of the light that might come rise out of the devolution bill that your geologic tussle be considering in the coming months. A will the Government ensure that the role of the Department Corporation sits coherently alongside wider reforms coherently alongside wider reforms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What mechanisms will be in place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What mechanisms will be in place to guarantee proper oversight and transparency in the way that corporations exercise powers? What corporations exercise powers? What consideration has been given to consideration has been given to practicalities of staff and capacity? We talked about this a lot. Development corporations are lot. Development corporations are not a new invention but establishing and running them effectively will always depend on having sufficient always depend on having sufficient planners and infrastructure experts. planners and infrastructure experts.

These are already in short supply across councils, so how does the government propose to ensure the creation of additional corporations creation of additional corporations does not stretch an already limited workforce further? These questions are intended to ensure that if are intended to ensure that if development corporations are cheaply a greater role, that they do so with clarity, accountability, the confidence of the communities that confidence of the communities that confidence of the communities that they serve. I support the sentiment of the amendment made by Lord Lansley 90s make compelling arguments, to which we agree.

These recognised decisions on development and regeneration are often best taken at the city and regional taken at the city and regional scale, rather than from Westminster and Whitehall. I turned to the government amendments and thanked the government for allowing us to place our amendment alongside theirs because they tie in need the to the questions I have raised. I thank her for setting out the amendments. This is claimed as clarification measures and if two overlap, the higher the overlap the higher peaks presence.

On the surface, this looks like it provides certainty about it is not address the underlying confusion about how corporations will function, as we have already argued, in a post-devolution landscape. This is for three reasons. First, it is undefined in practice and the amendment assumes that it is obvious which body is on the high tier and the post devolution environment complicates this. Is it the combined authority, a development Association, county, or a national designated corporation which, without statutory clarity, the amendment shifts the ambiguity rather than resolving.

It does not tackle the agreements and this is not about geography. They come with planning, geography, power. Even if they are given priority, it does not set out how the conflicting powers, for example planning, versus regeneration, versus transport are supposed to mesh together. It fails to explain the relationships. Many will have bespoke powers over regeneration and planning. Often these are essentially created and accountable to the Secretary of State and these fit with the locally devolved structures and this remains uncertain.

Simply saying the higher tier wins avoids the bigger question about whether they should be accountable upwards to Whitehall downwards to devolved and local downwards to devolved and local This does not meet the framework for how they fit into the devolved how they fit into the devolved
16:21
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
government space. Speak about having listened carefully to the debate, I think it would be clear but I want think it would be clear but I want to express some support for to express some support for amendment 362 and four Lady Scott, amendment 362 and four Lady Scott, 159A, and I hope the Minister replies that they will provide clarity. Guidance was issued by the government to clarify the legislation, scrutiny, and governance of the combined authorities.

I am pleased that steps have been taken to incorporate the recommendations of the report recommendations of the report published over 18 months ago. This is to clarify the regulations in is to clarify the regulations in respect of the authority and the development corporation because it development corporation because it is important to ensure that they are is absolute clarity about oversight, is absolute clarity about oversight, reserved matters, and liabilities, reserved matters, and liabilities, and I welcome the firm intention of the government to do so.

It has puzzled me that in the published guidance in April, the words 'risk' and 'risk management' do not appear. And this point was raised by Lady -- it is important development corporations have the capacity to fulfil the expectations of government. There is an issue which we may come onto as to where they will get income from. I look forward to the discussion. I am concerned about how the corporations will be struck to ensure the full risk analysis takes place on decision- making for what will be major capital infrastructure investment.

Overview and scrutiny is overview and scrutiny. Scrutiny is scrutiny of a decision and overview is overview as how decisions are being made and the risk and the risk analysis as part of a stark decision to invest money and it's not just to invest money and it's not just overview and scrutiny it is about preventing risky investments and I ask the Minister, when she replies, can she explain who will pick up the bill if the risk is not properly considered at the right point in the decision-making process.

At the moment, I have a suspicion that the bill will be carried by council tax payers of the area concerned and I would like that point to be clarified because I don't think that the system based upon the council tax payer being the body of the last resort to make up a loss is going to be appropriate. I hope very much indeed to hear the views of the Minister on those matters.
16:24
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I turn... I will start with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I turn... I will start with the notice of Lady Scott to oppose clause 93 and I welcome the opportunity to explain the intentions behind the clause. Clause intentions behind the clause. Clause 93 clarifies development Corporation models including changes to legislation which would extend the legislation which would extend the remit of the mineral development -- mayoral development so they can extend the remit and that means separate passes can be designated as one Newtown area overseen by one Newtown development authority.

The current system is not fit for current system is not fit for purpose and each model was developed to address a specific circumstance at the time of introduction and this poses significant risk to the poses significant risk to the effective delivery of the development corporations. For example, that it only be used for example, that it only be used for regeneration projects as was developed for London recently but developed for London recently but then extended to rural areas. The English Devolution and Community English Devolution and Community Empowerment Will Soften Allow More Corporations and so is more important to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose.

Moving to amendment 195A which will remove the power to do anything expedient for the purposes of the new town, I would reassure the Baroness that this is not an addition to the framework. The provision is written into primary legislation and underpins the new town development Corporation and the open development Corporation models and the changes include listing specific functions and bringing them in line with the development corporations with addition to the pumps which have been added to the list of infrastructure which can be delivered by models.

As development corporations are used to respond to specific needs of developments and regeneration schemes, it's important legislation offers this level of flexibility so that they can be tailored accordingly and we want to see the large-scale projects that support housing and economic growth. However, they must be supported by the infrastructure without compromising existing provisions and it would be a step backwards to take the power away from Newtown development corporations and only provide a list of infrastructure. Some developments may require new technology.

Decisions to establish the corporations and the powers they will have or be made by regulations and they are subject to statutory compensation and oversight will be designed carefully and, as I say, subject to statutory consultation. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Turning to 206A table by Lord Lansley, these would standardise and extend powers with standardise and extend powers with respect to the developments for the mayors of all strategic development authorities outside London.

It is vital we transform and reduce sites and create thriving communities tailored to local needs and for this purpose the corporation should be part of every Mayo toolkit. We believe these are unnecessary at the changes proposed are being made to the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill from July, 2025. Within the scope, it is the most appropriate vehicle and I think his point about delay but I would say I'm not under the impression there will be any changes to the community empowerment Bill and so I think it will move on at pace and I hope that it will be appropriate for the changes that we are talking about.

Moving onto amendment 362...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since we have part four relating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since we have part four relating to development corporations I fail to see why this bill is not the appropriate place to legislate appropriate place to legislate rather than the English Devolution and Community Empowerment. I think and Community Empowerment. I think this points to a different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conclusion than the one that the Minister use. I think it sits alongside other measures in the bill and that is why measures in the bill and that is why it has been put into the bill rather than this one. Moving onto amendment than this one. Moving onto amendment 362, this amendment would commence provisions with relation to the provisions with relation to the corporations within two months of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill the Planning and Infrastructure Bill passing. I welcome the enthusiasm of the noble Lord in wanting changes implemented quickly and I share his passion and we recognise these are passion and we recognise these are important measures with a clear, flexible and robust framework to unlock more housing across the country and coordinating this with country and coordinating this with infrastructure and transport to support sustained economic growth and we want the changes to come into force as soon as possible but, however, and I would say this, there is further work to ensure the development corporations are set up for success and it takes a significant amount of time to establish a development Corporation including the parity and scoping work and be do not envisage this would cause delays to those interested in setting up a development corporation but I do not think the progress of the bill will hold things up unnecessarily either.

It might be helpful if I discover some issues around how this will work. Of course, we know that development corporations are a vital tool for delivering large-scale and complex property development particularly where the risk, and Lord Shipley mentioned this, is too great for the private sector alone and to encourage the use of development corporations and reduced challenge, there should be clarity with the remit and function and decisions to designate and grant powers must be made by regulations and are subject to statutory consultation and must be made with careful consideration to look at the issues of oversight and we have heard about that and the Department consulting on oversight and regulations for locally led corporations last year and the government response is expected later this calendar year.

I hope it does not run out before later around. Locally led urban development corporations could be set up before the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act commences and in relation to the point from the noble Lord, the government had issued a response to the independent review and the joint venture which included clarifying the available measures to strengthen the oversight for development corporations on April 3, four to 55, when guidance was published to clarify legislation and scrutiny of development corporations. I hope that gives a corporations.

I hope that gives a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Manesar sits down, can I ask her to explain, who is the I ask her to explain, who is the funder of a last resort when there is a loss delivered by Merrill is a loss delivered by Merrill development Corporation. Visit the council taxpayer for the geographical area of the development corporation of the combined corporation of the combined authority? All is if the -- Or is it the government? To put it another way, who pays for a loss if the development corporation makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

loss. We all hope there won't be a loss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all hope there won't be a loss but we must always have provision in place, for that. I know there is place, for that. I know there is ongoing discussion with some in the ongoing discussion with some in the taskforce about how the financial detail and program works, so it is probably best if I reply to noble probably best if I reply to noble Lords in writing on that issue, if that would be helpful. I hope that that would be helpful.

I hope that gives the noble Lord reassurance. I would say in relation to the point would say in relation to the point about capacity, again, there are discussions going on about how we make all of this happened. We have already allocated £46 million to planning but we will continue to have those discussions with taskforce about what the delivery mechanisms are going to be. That said, I hope the noble Lord has some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reassurance and that he would agree to withdraw his amendments. If I might ask, in respect of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I might ask, in respect of my noble friend's amendment, 195, A, reading the words in the bill, I would be interested in the Minister helping me understand what places helping me understand what places limits on the last words on page 123 limits on the last words on page 123 of the bill? Would it be open for a development cooperation, for development cooperation, for instance, to do in Ireland, say any business, moving their headquarters to the area of the development to the area of the development cooperation, and pay half the tax rates currently in the United Kingdom.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom. It is not my understanding that there will be physical devolution powers in that way, but I will take powers in that way, but I will take that back and reply to the noble Lord if I am wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord if I am wrong. I understood from what the noble Lady, the minister, is saying, it is the government intention to bring all of section 172 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act relating to locally led new towns relating to locally led new towns into forces, I correct in that? I got the impression that that is the government intention, but it wasn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quite explicit. My understanding is powers in the bill relating to locally led development cooperations will be development cooperations will be brought into power. But I've committed to write the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committed to write the noble Lord Jennison with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it. Sorry about this, could the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry about this, could the noble Lady, the Minister, also, she said the money that has been put aside by the money that has been put aside by the government to support further planning, skills training, et cetera, did she say that could also be used by development corporations? be used by development corporations? Because I had the understanding that was for local government, not for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

development corporations as well. Sorry if I misled the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry if I misled the noble Lady. What I meant to say was the government recognises the issue around planning capacity and we have allocated that £46 million for local allocated that £46 million for local government and we must have the discussions with some that recognises that there are schools

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognises that there are schools there to deal with organisations as well. Can a minister tell us when we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can a minister tell us when we can expect to see the report on the task force?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does Does the Does the noble Does the noble Baroness Does the noble Baroness want Does the noble Baroness want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the noble Baroness want to move 186? The question is amendment 186 be agreed to? As many as are of 186 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 93 stand part of the that clause 93 stand part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 93, amendment 187, Baroness Taylor. amendment 187, Baroness Taylor. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to. As many amendment 187 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not In clause 94, amendment 187 In clause 94, amendment 187 180 In clause 94, amendment 187 180 7A, already debated, Baroness Scott, not moved.

-- amendment 187, A. Amendment 188, Lord Fuller.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendments 188, 191 and 192 in my name on the
16:38
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
188, 191 and 192 in my name on the Marshalled list. I welcome the trust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations concentrated in the legislation, this is the best part of a complex bill, in my view. Although, we now know it has already been overtaken by the devolution launched on the other place. Clause 9460 achievement of sustainable development and the mitigation to the adaption of climate change for will be no sustainable and without commercially sustainable financing about the proposals the corporation are bringing forward.

So my amendment seeks to bring sustainable finance along side those with other sustainability issues. Now, I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities reorganise, may be created, and what we now learn to be a cat's cradle of overlapping competing responsibilities. But regardless of that, the day-to-day financial pressures, felled by national and local government, has never been greater. In a former time, development corporations would simply hold out their hand to the government or local councils for funding.

Of course, that route may still be open, but we need to recognise that the old ways, with joint and, joint severability, between local tiers of government, is falling away. And building new towns as the work of generations, it goes beyond political cycles and local and national politicians will not be enough in a world where building a secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover, 100. So, in the pursuit of sustainable, delivery on the plans, the money needs to be right. Because without the money, how can although desirable options, in clause 95, be delivered? We need to give the development corporations powers to exploit the difference between funding and financing by explanation, funding is writing the cheque, but financing is putting the deal together and it is no surprise it is the finances and the city -- The financers in the city of London who are the highest paid, their task is the hardest, putting their good ideas into reality.

Development corporations are relevant, but they have the benefit of leaning on the strength that comes from being a secondary body. And I will not dwell too much on the significance of the governance of development corporations but I will make the factual observation that strong governance leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating and the willingness of institutional investors to podium the cash. We need to make it easy for development corporations to raise funds in a new and creative ways.

At the lowest possible coupon. My amendments will pathfinder those. Getting this right, we provide investable opportunities for pension funds, the desire to invest in infrastructure bonds, for local people who want to invest in local facilities that benefit areas, and for sovereign wealth which seeks a home for their money in an advanced economy with well-defined property rights. But the well of wealth in these sources may not be enough. There may be other ways to skin the cat. Corporations need to be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the bonds, debt, or similar financial instruments, but we should cultivate other sources of finance.

And that extends, in my view, entering into joint ventures with landowners perhaps. Whose land is to be incorporated. As an in-kind contribution. To the whole. So that they may enjoy the uplift over a long period, rather than cash upfront. It shouldn't be right that development corporations feel they need to reach for the CPO lever. By default. And then be forced to pony up a premium price, upfront to the owner, after the unpleasantness of the process. Developed corporations need to have the powers not just to assemble that, but be creative in the assembly of that land.

The creative concept of the joint venture, money to be spent on upfront infrastructure, then land acquisition, that is a valued enterprise. By thinking creatively like this, the amount of upfront funding will be less and the ability to deliver essential info structure at the outset will be greater. So, I want to place finance in its widest possible context, not just routing out the sort of funding we stand on the street corner with your handout. Let's see these stand-alone corporations, away from the other financial pressures that affect local government, and free them from the apron strings of those local authorities.

So, whilst I accept the development corporations can plan for area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, contemplated in clause 93, ultimately those plans are outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together, and that is what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. In clause 94,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. In clause 94, page 123, at the end of line 6, insert the words as printed older insert the words as printed older Marshalled list. -- As printed in the Marshalled list. The question is
16:43
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, can I just say that I am interested in the points that have interested in the points that have been made by the noble Lord Fuller been made by the noble Lord Fuller and I'm going to be more interested in the response of the Minister, and of course, bearing in mind what I of course, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group, relating to both the management of risk, and who actually underpins a development who actually underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.

Can I say that, in this group, lives Amendment one and this group, lives Amendment one and this group, lives Amendment one and seven. -- Amendment 197. I think it is very important, there are two issues, one is about the automatic issues, one is about the automatic removal of hope value from evaluation of relevant land. Proposed for development. And secondly, whether land purchases by secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as public sector investments to seen as public sector investments to be counted against, departmental be counted against, departmental expenditure limits, it seems to me in the name of this amendment, in in the name of this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord little, it seems to be a very important amendment and I hope the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will respond to that. My Lords, first of all, can I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, can I thank my noble friend, Lord Fuller, for his amendments. The financing of
16:44
16:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, turning first to amendments 188, 190, and 192, these amendments would add to the objectives of development corporations, such that all the relevant corporations will be obliged to aim to contribute to the funding of financing of development proposals, with the option of using financial insurance such as bonds and debts to achieve this objective. And in addition to the comments I made earlier about still further discussions to take place in relation to the financing, of course, I should have mentioned, there would be read funding available.

There are capital grants programs as well, such as the National delivery fund and social and affordable housing program and development corporations will be able to enter joint ventures and land agreements, to obtain private capital. Development corporations will also be able to obtain capital financing, through loans and equity, from the national bank of the National Wealth Fund. I thought it was important to clarify all of that. It is vital developing corporations as well as the development, the coordinated and deliver, are probably financed.

Therefore I welcome the intent of the noble Lord's amendments, they should not however be brought forward for two main reasons. Firstly, the amendment would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations. This bill seeks to ensure the development corporation legislative framework is clear, taxable, and robust importantly, developing corporations are used to address different types of developing challenges depending on the nature. Of the project. Including planning, land assembly and convening private sector investment. Development corporations need not directly from development to be successful.

It is the case for the Stockport mayoral development Corporation, requiring that all development corporations. Finance development would unnecessarily constrain the use of development corporations, rendering the model corporations, rendering the model Development corporations are able to borrow more affordably from central government. The existing vegetation provides both Newtown and urban develop and corporations can borrow directly from central government irrespective of whether they are centrally or locally led. A mayoral development Corporation can also borrow indirectly via its oversight authority including from the Public Works loan Board.

If instead develop and corporations were to issue bonds or raised directly to fund the development this is likely to be at a higher interest rate and less affordable there they borrowed from government. Turning now to amendment 197 which relates to technical area of compulsory purchase order and, this seeks to amend the new towns act 1981 to allow Newtown develop and corporations to use their compulsory powers under the act to acquire land for large-scale housing and transport schemes without paying home value compensation, without needing to justify a direction in the public interest.

This amendment would also ensure that land purchased under these powers would not count against Departmental Expenditure Limits. Well I sympathy maxima thighs with the amendment and the aims seeks to achieve not able to support it. Compensation for compulsory blunders Legs on the basis of the value of the land it was sold in the open market where now no development is being proposed. The assessment of open market value of land includes land, includes value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for development other than for develop and which has planning permission.

I think that's the term described. Pulse repurchasing land rates questions of common law fairness and engages the European Convention on Human Rights or any reforms to compulsory compensation laws must be made in accordance with the convention. To respond this constraint the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 introduced the power to allow develop and corporations and vacancy POs under the new towns act to facilitate affordable provision, to Of hope value from compensation provided there is justification in the public interest. The power introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 allows a fair balance has to be conducted in each case between the public and private interest in making a direction and ensures compatibility tea with European Convention on Human Rights the proposed amendment is a blanket nondiscretionary measure approach to nondiscretionary measure approach to reducing a home value and the government doesn't consider it sufficient evidence to be confident the amendment is consistent with ECHR rights because it is not clear that the public benefit of removing home value these situations would outweigh the impact on individual landowners affected by the proposed measure in all cases full stop in part to be, land purchases create an asset that doesn't have a direct financial return along to Corporation and land purchases to be excluded from Departmental Expenditure Limits could significantly increase levels of public sector borrowing.

The government is committed to ensuring economic stability and sustainable levels of public debt through its fiscal rules, I therefore cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this change and for these reasons I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. Is part of my research for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is part of my research for the series of amendments I looked at the new towns act and I know it is 80 years since the Minister's hometown years since the Minister's hometown of Stevenage was seeded so to speak, in that time it is now time to bring things up-to-date because at that time of day central government had time of day central government had the power and the finance to get these things off the ground. Things these things off the ground. Things have moved on and we need some more creative thinking.

There are wider sources of capital and finance in sources of capital and finance in the world and more players wanting to participate. I do not accept that my amendment would arbitrarily constrain the development corporations in pursuance of corporations in pursuance of financing their quite weighty objectives, many of which are enumerating the next clause, clause enumerating the next clause, clause 95. It wouldn't constrain them but give them a choice, it would give them an option. An option not compulsion to widen the pool of
16:51
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
compulsion to widen the pool of finance should they wish. The Minister in her winding suggested powers exist for them to go to Paro from central government and she referred specifically to the public works loan bill. -- Borrow. Anybody who knows anything about the public loans work board knows as a result of some rather ill-advised advances it is now limited, I believe the sum is 90 million, can't remember exactly doesn't matter. The fact is exactly doesn't matter. The fact is it is thus far and no further.

She asserts that while the Public Works loan Board is always cheaper than others and we know that not to be the case as the example of the municipal bonds agency demonstrated, there was a well of capital for international markets willing to invest in local infrastructure projects at lower rates than councils were able to borrow from the PWL B, that is had the headroom existed. So the premise that not only central government is the only route but any other routes would be more expensive is demonstrably false.

That is further the case that if in the example I gave earlier landowner may wish to cede some of his land into the developing Corporation as part of the redline in-kind rather than in cash, it is possible there would be no coupon to be paid at all. The interest, the return would come long-term as the development proceeded. So I just don't accept that this is a constraining amendment, I don't accept, will I take from what the Minister said was its highly likely that the consequence of not accepting this option is that first of all capital may be constrained, it is possible the develop and corporations may pay more and the opportunity to actually assemble land in a creative manner may be taken away.

Clearly we are at Committee stage, perhaps we ought to engage in this between now and report. I fear that the Minister's brief is labouring under a full sperm is which actually I think we can say can be resolved and should be if the promise of development

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg leave I beg leave to I beg leave to withdraw. Before he sits down I don't think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before he sits down I don't think I said that PWL B was the only source of funding for develop and corporations. I did mention they will be able to enter into joint- venture's unlined agreement to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

venture's unlined agreement to obtain private capital and use the national bank and the National Wealth Fund. Thank you for that but I beg leave to withdraw perhaps we can return to it possibly at report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return to it possibly at report. Your logic pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment by leave withdrawn. amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 189 Lord Crisp not moved. Amendment 189 Lord Crisp not moved. 190 Lord Fuller... Not moved. 191 190 Lord Fuller... Not moved. 191 Lord Crisp not moved. 192 Lord Lord Crisp not moved. 192 Lord Fuller not moved. 193 Lord Crisp not moved. The question is that clause 94 as amended stand part of the 94 as amended stand part of the bill.

As -- As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. After clause "Contents" have it. After clause 94... Amendment 194 Baroness Grender 94... Amendment 194 Baroness Grender not moved.. In clause 95 amendment 195 Baroness Miller. Not moved. 195 a Baroness Scott. Not moved. 196 Baroness Miller not moved. 197 Lord Liddle not moved. 198 Baroness Miller not moved. 199 Baroness Miller not moved.

The question is that clause 95 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor? Moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 200 is agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 201 Baroness Taylor? Moved Amendment 201 Baroness Taylor? Moved formally. The question is that amendment 201 is agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it.

Amendment The "Contents" have it. Amendment 202 and 203 Baroness Taylor. The question is that amendment 202 and question is that amendment 202 and 203 202 and 203B agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". and of the contrary, "Not content". and of the contrary, "Not content". After clause 96... Amendment 204 and After clause 96... Amendment 204 and 205 withdrawn. Amendment 206 Baroness Willis? Not moved. Amendment 206 a Lord Lansley not moved.

The question is that clause 97 stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion -- As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". Sorry 97 as amended stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In clause 98 amendment 200 and 207 Lord Lucas.
16:58
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move amendment to 007 and speak same time to amendments to await and 209 and I'm grateful to noble Baroness for adding her name to these, I'm sorry she can't be here today. Clause 98 refers to newspaper notices and the purpose of requiring notices in local newspapers is to inform the public. Most of the public now get their local news from other sources than traditional local newspapers. As the government accepts the need for notices as evidenced by clause 98 and we are looking at the system which costs public purse around £50 million a year, I hope they will agree that the notices they are requiring and paying for should be placed where people will read them my amendment proposes a much needed update to the 1881 definition of a newspaper just what rules these notices at the moment.

Allows local councils to place notices relating to planning and infrastructure with trusted, professional and widely read online local news outlets. That was what the 1881 legislation achieved in its day. It made sure that these notices were placed where people were reading and in publications that they could access and trust. We need to move that on a bit. The local news industry has undergone a deep transformation with the rise of online news and the decline of printed papers.

Last year more than half of traditional regional papers had circulation below 5,000 copies. Comparatively the average local independent online news outlet attracted almost 5,000... 500,000 unique users. Across the UK digital outlets established in the last decade or so connecting with growing audiences and I would name the Bristol cable, the Waltham Forest echo, view digital in Belfast and many others including of course my local Eastbourne reporter. There have been countless calls in recent years to review the public notice system to support the regeneration of local news, including by the Department of culture, media and sports, sustainability of local journalism report and the House of Lords own future of news report less than one year ago.

Local news is vital. People need to know what's going on in their community, need to be able to understand what is happening locally, what is available to them locally, what the local councils are up to locally, having a flow of local information is absolutely fundamental. To community life. The flow of money to public notices is flow of money to public notices is most helpful in supporting local news but the one supported should be ones that are actually doing the work, the vital work of distributing local news, not the ones that did it local news, not the ones that did it In conclusion, these amendments together embrace both the print and digital distribution, meaning councils can maximise transparency, strengthen their relationships with local media and fulfil their statutory obligations more effectively.

A modernist system and serve residents better, support journalism where it's most needed, and ensure the public notices have cheaper purposes in today's media ecosystem. Noble Lords will notice that I have taken, gone to some lengths, to establish that these notices should be placed in quality Interest, and a local presence, there may be other better ways to do this, but at the end of the day, what we are asking councils to do is to exercise their own judgement as to how best to get this information

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out to the local population. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 98,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 98, page 134, line 23, insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshalled list. I am amazed there are no other members of your Lordships house that members of your Lordships house that wants to speak about local news and local newspapers. I have broad agreement with the amendments in the agreement with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lucas. The name of the noble Lord Lucas. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the question we have to ask the question we have to ask ourselves is in the, with the sad decline, I believe, the sad decline decline, I believe, the sad decline of printed local news, how best to of printed local news, how best to make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently only placed in printed news outlets get a greater reading, and more information about
17:04
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
reading, and more information about them spread, by including them in online reputable, or quality, may be online news outlets. And I agree with noble Lords it should be both and, there are still quite a number of people who read a paper version of a local newspaper. And I am amazed to hear around people, where I live, because they contact me, who read these public notices to ask what on earth is going on here. Even though they are printed in may be font size 607, so you need a magnifying glass to read them.

I have to say that is one question the noble Lord Lucas has considered, the public notices in the print media, they are very tightly printed. And how that is accessible online. Because sometimes you get a whole page of public notices. That is one thing. I do generally support, we have got to do something about it, to make sure more people have access to important information. The third thing is currently, on my understanding, is there is a public notice portal.

Which gathers public notices from the print media, and put it on this portal. And whether or not the noble Lord Lucas is thinking about enabling, for councils to publish directly onto those, not public news portal, that would be of interest I think. Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord Lucas, we have to do a reform. Others have looked at it in detail, and even the Lordships house has considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it.

But with those remarks, I look forward to others' comments on this
17:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak about the amendments tabled by my noble friend, Lord tabled by my noble friend, Lord Lucas, his amendment highlights and reaffirm the importance of local reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasing -- Increasingly these are online but Increasingly these are online but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, either sometimes daily, but often weekly now. They do daily, but often weekly now. They do differ in local areas, so I do think local authorities are the best people to decide on how and what people to decide on how and what media they use for advertising and planning.

On this side of the House, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, this is a Kingdom. As we have heard, this is a really important conduit for local people and their authorities, and are crucial for holding community are crucial for holding community engagement, and local. -- Local democracy. And I hope all noble democracy. And I hope all noble Lords in your Lordships house will join me in supporting. Local news publishers, it is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions being made.

Local people are those being most affected by such decisions and it is important their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role, both in making sure local people are represented, and that relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope the government will take these amendments seriously look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

addressed. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling this Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling this interesting amendments which relates to the notices of compulsory purchase orders. I can't help thinking there is a solution to this but perhaps not exactly this one.
17:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
but perhaps not exactly this one. Because I do think we have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness got, -- Baroness Scott, I support local news publications, and one of the geeks seek to instruct public notices, not because I want to see what my local council is doing, I am not there anymore, but what I want to see what the local next councils are doing as well. And it is an important way information is shared, but also, local newspapers play an important foreign terms of supporting democracy, communicating with our residents, being that a signpost for all social events going on locally.

And I know they have been through a very tough time recently, and if we didn't have the addition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online, it is produced online and as a copy, you can pick it up in the supermarket. They are an important part of our local life. Lord Lucas's amendments would reform the acquisition of land act 1981 and would constrain requiring authorities, and the type of local newspaper which notices of making a confirmation of compulsory purchase orders, must be for -- Must be publishing, they have to reach a certain quality and leadership criteria, and possessing at least one direct resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist, not operated by a government, political party or legislative institution.

Subject to the code of ethical standards, and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate. The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish authorities if they are making confirmation of CEOs, in a newspaper in the locality or included in the relevant CPO. It does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. It requires published notices in newspapers, an important part of the CPO process. Requiring authorities already motivated to ensure notices are well publicised. Because that helps them avoid legal challenge.

However, these amendments will constrain and place unnecessary burdens on the acquiring authorities were attempting to comply with published notices. The amendments make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process. Increase the potential risk of legal challenges, resulting in additional costs. And delay decision-making, and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the government objectives. I would add that it would be really helpful if they could be publishing a bigger font than, I think the noble Lady says, size 6, it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper.

But if you can take a picture of them and expand it out on your phone, which is what I do, that does help. For these reasons I have given, we kindly ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness says about the
17:12
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
noble Baroness says about the quality criteria. And they were therefore discussion, but I don't understand the willingness to restrict the publication of these notices to 1881 style newspapers. The purpose, surely, of publishing these notices is that they get noticed. Either, therefore, the government should say we will create, as a government, a website and place of these notices on them, and then that is where you know, you can find all the notices there, you can sort them by locality or whatever and it will cost us a few hundred thousand a year.

Rather than the 50 million a year we are paying at the moment. As they are all available, they are there, people know where they are going. A doing at the moment, is paying £50 million for people to have to pay even more to buy the newspaper. Just to see the public notices page, because local newspapers used to be vibrant, argumentative, full of interesting journalists. Now you are lucky if they have got one journalist. Mostly, it's just reprinted press ads, and syndicated competitions.

If these notices are meant to get into the press where people notice them randomly, then they need to be much more widely distributed. If it is that they should be publicly of, so that people know that, and are of interest, they can go and find them, they should be on a government website. To pay, the government is paying a lot of money, for no value, with the current system and I would be interested now, from the government, if the intent is when it is published, therefore we can find it, that is important to them, or that people can find it at random, which is important to them for because if it is the former, then I will bring an amendment back a port to create a government website, instead of the newspaper requirement.

And if it is the latter, I will try a simplified version of this amendment, like I say, I will be happy to receive the answer, but in writing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?. The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.. Amendment 208, Lord Lucas, not Amendment 208, Lord Lucas, not moved. And 209, Lord Lucas, not moved. The question is that clause moved. The question is that clause 98 stand as part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents of it. The content". The contents of it. The question is that clauses 199-202 question is that clauses 199-202 unblocked stand as part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". Amendment 209, A, Lord Maxton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maxton. Amendment 209, A, concerns the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 209, A, concerns the scope of exceptions to homeless payments. In clause 103 of the bill. The compulsory acquisition of property, particularly a dwelling, property, particularly a dwelling, is a serious step for which clear and proper justification should be required. The person displaces required. The person displaces usually compensated by a statutory homeless payment. In clause 103 of homeless payment. In clause 103 of homeless payment. In clause 103 of the bill the proposed new section 32, A, of the 1973 act stipulates exceptions to the right to such a home loss payment, when the property has been allowed to get into disrepair, or there have been other failures.

Under the bill, people covered by those exceptions are to be denied any home loss payment. However, in reality, the price the individual receives one compulsory purchase will always come already, reflect any lack of repair. Deprivation of the home loss payment will therefore be in addition to the reduced price which reflects a poor
17:16
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
state of repair. There may well be situations in which a denial of a home loss payment would be justified, when there has been a significant culpable failure to comply with obligations to maintain, repair, or safeguard the public, repair, or safeguard the public, wholly or in part. -- Safe the property, wholly or in part, but property, wholly or in part, but these unqualified exceptions in the clause as drafted, could operate unduly harshly and punitively. unduly harshly and punitively. Taking no account of individual circumstances, or of any underlying reason for non-compliance with the notice or order triggering notice or order triggering application of the exception and leading to an automatic forfeiture leading to an automatic forfeiture leading to an automatic forfeiture The amendment proposed would not open the door to any extensive argument or investigation into the reasons for non-compliance, but it would I suggest allow the person would I suggest allow the person concerned to show that his omissions were not deliberate and that the cause of his non-compliance was cause of his non-compliance was simply that the required work could not be carried out because of that person's ill health or infirmity person's ill health or infirmity because it was unaffordable, because of an inability to obtain funding.

It is important to remember in these situations that the property being compulsory acquired as a home, and that the displaced homeowner will almost certainly need the homeless payment to find a replacement home. Some modification of the blanket application of exclusions from such payments would make the proposed new clause fairer and more reasonable. On that basis I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 103 page 142 line 41 at the end insert the words as printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The principle behind this amendment is an important one, the issues raised by Lord Meston deserve
17:18
17:18
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Lord Meston for raising this amendment on Compulsory Purchase Act Compensation Bill is. The amendment would ensure The amendment would ensure homeowners still receive home loss payments even where they have failed to take action required by an improvement notice or order served on them. If that failure is due to the person's poor health or other infirmity or the inability to afford the cost of the action, a homeless payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO.

Under the current provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973 where property owners have failed to comply with an improvement notice the right to basic and occupies loss payments is excluded. There are however no similar exclusions currently the home loss payments. This bill amends the 1973 act to apply this exclusion home loss payments also. However where the exclusion of the homeless payment applies owners would still be entitled to compensation for the market value of the property, disturbance compensation or other costs of the CPO process such as legal or other professional costs.

The provision introduced by this bill lower local authorities costs of using their CPO powers to bring substandard properties back into use as housing and ensure the compensation regime is fair. The amendment would ensure that an owner can show they did not deliberately allow the property subject to an improvement notice order to fall into disrepair or to remain derelict, and that it was a result of ill health, other infirmity or a lack of financial resources they can still make a claim for a homeless payment.

We believe it is for individual local authorities to determine whether it's appropriate to serve an improvement notice order under the provisions listed in the Land Compensation Act, taking into account the personal circumstances of the property owner. For these reasons I would kindly ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful for the support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for the support of remarks from the opposition frontbench and also grateful for the frontbench and also grateful for the considered response of the government which in turn I would government which in turn I would like to think about more closely, and in particular the wider implications of what is being
17:21
17:22
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
land that is to be purchased for public use. The whole principle of hope value was debated at length and in detail during your Lordships house consideration of the levelling up and regeneration Bill as it was then. It was agreed by the government of the time that hope value could be disregarded by acquiring authorities for a number of purposes, some included for schools for example, but acquire an disregarding hope value for recreational uses public recreational uses was not included in the list of categories where hope value could be disregarded.

So the two amendments in my name, 209B and 209C seek to add the disregarding of hope value by acquiring authorities into the legislation. The reason is fairly straightforward and obvious. We had a debate about the importance of recreational land in a previous committee day and Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan made very strong case for better planning and openness of planning application for sporting use. These two amendments seek to add to that, the importance of the availability of recreational public recreational land cannot be overstated.

In the days gone by children could go out the front door and play in the street without risk. Now that is not possible because of the obvious influx of every household having a car. Children in order to play outside have to be taken somewhere, and if there are taken somewhere, and if there are taken somewhere, and if there are taken somewhere, and if there are To to walk round a lake or play To to walk round a lake or play and playing equipment provided, there is a huge loss to the development of young people.

Sport is really important to this country. The world champion athletic Championships, I'm enough let's expand, compared to Tokyo could I. It's important that all children have the opportunities for play and if the local authorities are wishing to extend the use of recreational areas, then it is best if the cost of those, that land is not added to by hope value. Simple amendment actually, to simple amendments. Same purpose. To enable local authorities to buy land without hope value attached to them for recreational use.

I look forward to hearing the other amendments in this group and will respond to them when I replied to the Minister with those short but I hope strong messages that this is an important issue I beg leave to withdraw -- to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move my amendment. Amendment proposed clause 105

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 105 page 147, line 8, insert the words
17:26
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the marshalled List. I rise to move amendments to 10

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendments to 10 and speak to my amendment to 1-1 and also to amendment to G7 G in the also to amendment to G7 G in the name of Lord Sandhurst. For a beginner refer the House to my register of interests as I have previously disclosed in the -- to the committee on this bill. When we say the Conservative party is under new management we mean it. We are rightly proud of much of the work that went into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 but we also clear about areas where improvement is needed.

I bring forward this amendment to address one such issue, an issue that sits uncomfortably with our core principles of property rights and fair compensation. We believe deeply in the right of individuals to own property and the such ownership should not be disturbed lightly. When it is compensation must be fair, transparent and reflect true value of what has been lost. Hope value is not a vagal abstract notion, it is a well-established component of the valuation of land of and property, use not only in sales but also inheritance tax assessments and a wide range of commercial transactions.

It reflects the possibility that land might in future obtain planning permission for a more valuable use. Is this very element that allows developers and others to bring forward land for development, persuading reluctant landowners to sell by recognising the future potential of their lands. To disregard hope value is to ignore how the market works it risks undermining confidence in the land markets and creating new barriers to development rather than reading them. Valuation methodologies underpinning hope value are well understood, professionally governed and economically rational.

They are consistent with option valuations and financial markets although I'm not sure they go so far as to use the black shawls option pricing model. If the site has no realistic prospect of future development is -- naturally be no or negligible. Where a site has a reasonable expectation of future change in use reflected in prices agreed between buyers and sellers we must ask, why should the government or local authorities be entitled to disregard that? In doing so they risk ignoring market signals and distorting resource allocation. If the market values a piece of land is having future potential for residential development and the authority wants to use it for a different, potentially less efficient use, that should reflection not concealment.

In a helpful written response following Second Reading the Minister set out the intended application of these provisions. That response included reference to land for education and health purposes but also to housing. Not necessarily affordable. That gives little comfort. Baroness Pinnock introduced her amendment 209B to expand this to recreational facilities and needless to say we do We are told these powers will be used to support affordable schemes, but in practice the drafting is broad, the safeguards are weak and I see no mechanism that protects landowners should the purpose of the CPO change after acquisition.

Could the Minister clarify? Would these provisions still apply if the land is no longer used the original purpose stated in the CPO? Clear guidance or better still an amendment to this bill could help avoid costly litigation in the years to come. The Minister's letter also cited examples were moving hope value might help bring forward certain sites such as brownfield land viability as an issue. Phil plots and allocated sites that haven't yet come forward. That analysis does not hold. If viability truly is an issue the hope value will already be low or nil.

On ill infill allocated sites is not the price that delays development, but rather the length and complexity of the planning process the delays caused by responses from statutory consultees and agencies. I hope I've persuaded this committee that removing hope value does not unlock land or accelerate housing delivery, on the contrary it undermines property rights, we can trust in the planning system and may ultimately deter landowners from bringing land forward. Amendment to 1-1, perhaps may fit better in later groups be displaced in this part of the bill.

My amendment deals with a particular circumstance where Natural England has attempted to incentivise financially a landowner to undertake an environmental delivery product -- project that the landowner has turned down and any CPO powers to acquire that land. If the CPE requires more to the land than was originally offered and it was clearly inadequate the landowner right turn it down. In those circumstances without implying that anyone was acting in bad faith by underpricing the contract, it's only right there should be a sanction on any and a return of cost would appear appropriate.

If the House were willing to support this amendment I believe it has several attractive characteristics. The first Natural England would be incentivised to cost and EDP appropriately at inception and also built-in and improper contingency. Second, Natural England would be dis-incentivised from using it CPO dis-incentivised from using it CPO Believers impact address many concerns. To amendment 227 GAA, I look forward to the comments from Lord Sandhurst when he produces this, but I quote from the European Convention on Human Rights, second reading, on the European Convention on Human Rights, he will have the right to possess property that has lovely bears.

Government cannot take property away from the people, for example, if it takes away land from someone from public use, he has to Compensated. Nothing in case law requires composition must relate to the full market value of the land, taken to comply with the ECHR case law. Case law provides examples of where less market value was considered justified. I must say I find a loving. That the government can provide private property under a CPO and compensate beneath market value simply because it believes it was justified.

I very much look forward to the comments from my noble friend in this amendment. In conclusion, these amendments are not about visiting development or slowing down progress. They are about fairness, legal clarity, and the proper recognition of property rights. They are about ensuring that when the state exercises its considerable powers to take land, it does so transparently, lawfully, and with proper respect for the individuals and businesses whose assets are affected. I urge the government to think again.
17:33
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move amendment 227, GA, stands in my name, this would insert a new clause 106, to require the Secretary of State, within one month of being passed, published a report on whether the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities remains compatible with the rights and freedoms protected in the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically article 1, protocol number one, the right to join. Peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The issue relating to possessions.

The issue relating to clause 106 is this. Or 105, sorry. Is now requiring authorities would need competition for compulsory need competition for compulsory purchase land to exclude value. Even so, without value was genuine, long established and granted realistic prospects of future development. This risks leaving landowners with compensation that does not reflect the true value of what they are losing. Indeed, it is not just a risk, it is more than that. And it will surely come to pass. No Land, full value, potentially by a private entity, without redress, to the original owner.

This raises clear questions of fairness, proportionality, and potential misuse of public power. And I look to the Minister for clarification on this. Equally troubling is the absence of safeguards to ensure that land taking compulsory, is actually used for its intended purpose, not sold on later for profit. With no compensation or benefit to the original owner. This risks opening the door for misuse of state power, diminishes public trust. This would be contrary to the principles of fair dealing, which have been established at least 70 years ago.

And acted on by governments of all persuasions ever since. In this, I refer to the a, which should be etched on every ministers heart. This was a British Government scandal, in the 1950s. It involved the compulsory purchase of agricultural land in Dorset, a RAF agricultural land in Dorset, a RAF bombing practice. The land was later transferred, and significantly increased the lands price, making it unaffordable to the original owners successes. The ensuring public inquiry, lead to the resignation of the Minister for agriculture, and the establishment of the cultural dance rules.

This ensures they can offer land back to the original owner. Although this situation is not the same as the one my amendment addresses, it is similar. The principles underlying it should be no different. It is called fair dealing. I invite the Minister to say plainly, where property is taken by compulsion, there must always be fair dealing. The scandal established that principle. Public bodies making use of CPOs should not later, if they change their mind, have financial gain at the expense of the landowner.

As I have explained, there is principles applied to the different but comparable position to that which this amendment addresses. I turn shortly to article 6 of the convention. This requires access to an effective remedy. Yet the m-pesa T about how compensation is assessed, and the perceived safeguards absence in some cases may give rise to that provision. This amendment does not seek to construct regeneration, it seeks legal clarity, transparency, and reassurance that the government remains committed to fair dealing, and to honour its obligations under the convention.

I urge the Minister to recognise the importance of these protections and accept the need for the report if this bill becomes law. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak to amendment 325 in
17:38
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak to amendment 325 in this group, but firstly, I would like to support the remarks made by like to support the remarks made by my noble friends. I would like to echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that somebody rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed? Generally, in the past, this has only been done for huge infrastructure projects.

Not that it makes that better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done. Although we have just heard of a very awful example from Lord Sandhurst. However, I sure of your Lordships will have read about the property but moved to make way for the HS2, the family farms taken, homes where people had to leave, is this something the general public really thinks is a good thing? Surely it is a human rights abuse. I think that this bill incentivises this approach.

By allowing enquiring agencies to buy the land and agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people. Not causing water as a reef. -- Not causing utter misery. I tend to amendment 225, and I thank noble Lords that have allowed me to insert Lords that have allowed me to insert a amendment into the group. This amendment will insert a new subsection, two a, into clause 83, to ensure that fields, used by people to graze their animals and high quality agricultural land could not be used for food production.

Cannot be compulsory purchase by Natural England, as part of their environmental delivery plans. I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy as we have these property rights, and in this bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier. And for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I said, where it is required. For new development. I spoke last week about high quality agricultural land, how it should be used to produce food, which is in clause B of this amendment, so I am not going to repeat all that we talked about last week.

I would like to focus on A in this amendment and that is land which is in personal use for the grazing of animals. Those people who have a few fields because they have horses, donkeys, may be llamas, goats, the pet sheep or anything else, they need those fields to keep their livestock or pets. Often, these fields may be on the outskirts of villages or towns. And therefore, look rather attractive to developers. But if this land were to be removed, what would happen to the land or livestock? I understand while ago, someone purchased a field so as mother could care for neglected donkeys, and while I understand that she has now died and the field had been sold, what would have happened if, while speed news for the donkeys, this field had been taken.

In short, I believe compulsory purchase, as I said before, seizing someone's property, is against human rights and should only be using the most extremist circumstances by government, that land, being utilised for family animals, should never be considered.
17:42
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
I should start by declaring that I have shares in family farming company, which owns the farm in the Midlands. As regards to amendment 210, to avoid giving a second reading speech, having to save us all a lot of time, I would just say I agree thoroughly with the speeches of Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst on those matters, and I will jump over what I was going to say. So- called hope value was just another term for what the market is prepared to pay for support of the woods, market value.

When you look at land, they may have already paid inheritance tax outcome invested in its maintenance improvement, and spend substantial sums, time and effort in seeking funding permission. -- Planning permission. At the local authority to simply swipe the increase in the value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but also a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development for EDPs or for anything else. There is, of course, a different perspective, at least in the case of land.

The increase in value may be derived from societal need, for example space for housing, rather than entirely the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled at least to a share of the uplift in value. My Lords, it already is. The state not only, and without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% Capital Gains Tax on the price achieved by all windows, but also receives other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission.

In the form of planning conditions, section 106 agreements, and so on. We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase very shortly, and subsequent amendments. In relation to hope value, in February 2025, the compulsory purchase Association in its response to the consultation process and rules for compulsory purchase had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would, and I will try to list briefly, make the development process slower and more complex, produce distortions in a two-tiered market with some land taken from its owners, subject to the removal of home value, via a compulsory purchase and some land sold at market price.

Discourage owners from promoting land for agricultural development. Would encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property and we have equalities impact on the human rights of those affected, for example, through potential abuse by inquiring authorities and time pressure put on areas by accepting terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of compulsory purchase process, as a fair and equal one.

There is a case for society capturing some of the value for development. And as I have tried briefly to illustrate, my Lords, society already does in the form of very significant tax and the planning conditions. The real issue, my Lords, is not compensate home value, but make sure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires first review of how long a planning permission can run also being lost, and secondly, ending the practice of planning permission being acquired by the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards.

In gradual obligations in this area need to be, and put together with time limit and this contractual aspect, with limiting planning permissions, would address issues, such as land banking, which are subject to other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward, voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, hearing the Minister's scepticism, hearing the Minister's Turning very briefly to 2011.

It took me awhile to get around this amendment but the higher spend of Natural England after compulsorily purchasing something would demonstrate that the contract offered to the owner had indeed been underpriced and the owner had been quite correct to reject it. In other words the use of compulsory purchase order strongly used as the site owner had not made a reasonable offer to take on the contract. Where such sharp practice occurs the landowner should have the site returned them or at least be compensated.

2011 is a probing amendment and I supported and would be interested to hear how the Minister chooses to respond.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name to amendment to 1-1
17:47
17:49
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. I turn first to amendment 209B and 290 table by Baroness Pinnock. The amendment seeks to amend clause 105 of the bill and expand the power introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase order to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. Amendment proposed to extend the types of CPOs which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs the provision of sporting and recreational facilities.

The amendment also seek to introduce the change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate Affordable Housing Commission when seeking directions removing hope value. While the government recognises the value of parks and playing fields to our communities we had a very interesting debate in this whole interesting debate in this whole interesting debate in this whole , I'm afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non- payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.

Affordable how, education and health I types of public sector led development whether public benefits to be facilitated through the non- payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The government has concerned the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling. And recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest is the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.

I thank Lord Roborough for his amendment 210, this would repeal section 14 a of the Land Compensation Act 1961 which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove clause 105 from the bill which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable house and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would remove the power which was introduced as he rightly said by the last government under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act which allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by Compulsory Purchase Act to pay reduced value for land where it would deliver clear and significant benefits and To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure this country desperately needs we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know many local authorities share the subjective but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations on land values landowners.

This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly and significant amounts of develop land remaining unused. The comment is committed to improving land assembly speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring remain committed to ensuring landowners are afforded fair compensation where compulsory powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Turning now to amendment to 1-1 table by Lord Roborough which would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase order's where the value of the land carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I would like to thank the noble Lord for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware we will turn to discussing nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. In order to successfully deliver this new strategic approach we must ensure that Natural England have sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required.

We expect Natural England to only consider using compulsory powers once other options to acquire Trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase order be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight including author is a by the Secretary of State and the landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach. Requiring Natural England to return land is set out in the proposed amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natalie Gaddafi's powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land whether by agreement or where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase order having this range of options provide certainty that conservation measures can be delivered that is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.

In line with the safeguards provided in the bill if land was required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. This would either reduce the amount of development EDP would cover, increase costs to developers or trigger the need to revoke the DP requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.

I recognise that the use of compulsory powers is an issue close to the hearts of many notable colleagues I trust noble Lords can recognise the needs of these targeted powers to ensure the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win win for nature and development. It's my understanding when we had a meeting with Natural England with a number of noble peers here today that they said they had only ever used the power three times, so I don't anticipate them doing this all the time.

Turning to three to five table by Baroness Hodgson which would restrict, sorry full stop
17:55
17:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I can't give that reassurance this afternoon, I'm sure he will understand that is not included in the bill at the moment. You may want to consider something on that later on. I understand the reason he is saying it. We have however said very clearly that there will be the possibility for the private sector to contribute to EDPs and we are encouraging our colleagues in Natural England to develop that Natural England to develop that further. Turning to amendment 325 table by Baroness Hodgson this would restrict Natural England's ability to use CPO powers to purchase land in use for the grazing animals were I've set out there is an extremely high bar for the Compulsory Purchase Act powers under the NRF with Secretary of State having to approve any use of these powers.

As I said in my response to Lord Roborough's amendment there is a clear need to ensure CPO is available, albeit with this very high bar for the use of future use of land will of course be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State and I set out early this afternoon the consideration both in the land-use framework and the NPPF that high- grade under cultural land must be -- agricultural, other areas of land must be considered before resorting to agricultural land. The Secretary of State will take that into consideration when considering whether to allow the CPO and will ensure that sensible choices are made that align with the government wider objectives not least in respect of food security which is a discussion we had many times in your Lordships house.

With this explanation I hope the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment. I turn now to amendment duty 7G table by Lord Sandhurst, it relates to the use of compulsory powers and compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights will stop the amendment six to placer requirement in the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within one month of the bill receiving Royal Assent, a report assessing whether the rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights adequately protected in the exercise of compulsory powers.

By local authorities. The power to compulsorily acquire a person's land is a Draconian power which engages the ECHR and raises questions of common law fairness, I think Lord Sandhurst referred to that himself. A fundamental principle of the compulsory purchase process is the confirming authority should be sure the purposes for which compulsory power is proposed to be used justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land effectively. Acquiring authorities must demonstrate to the confirming authority that such interference is so justified.

When making a decision on whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for each individual CPO the confirming authority must always give consideration to the provisions of article 1 and in the case of a dwelling article 8 of the ECHR and the impact of the proposed CPO on the individuals affected. The compulsory purchase process also enables the exchange of written representations and the holding of enquiries and hearings into objections conducted by an independent expect reporting to the Secretary of State -- inspector, his decision are subject to legal challenge to uphold rights enshrined in ECHR article 6.

When justifying CPOs the government guidance on compulsory purchases clear, but acquiring authorities should address the potential harm to private rights and how the impact on human rights from the respective order have been considered. The compulsory purchase process already provides protections to the rights of individuals affected by Compulsory Purchase Act, and for these reasons I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her very detailed
18:00
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Minister for her very detailed response to this group of amendments but I have to say I'm rather disappointed that the government didn't feel able to add a public recreational use to land that is to be disregarded by acquiring authorities for hope value. However in regard to the other amendments in this group, I should just remind noble Lords on the Conservative benches that it was their government that agreed through the levelling up and regeneration and act, these clauses about disregarding hope value for some of the public uses that were identified, schools, hospitals, social housing and so on.

All my simple amendment was was to say, isn't recreation as important for these other public benefits? So I am very surprised that Lord Roborough and others have brought their amendments, as it is in total contradiction to the view taken by the then Conservative government on the important actually for public the important actually for public In the end, I mean, Lord Roborough did say anything other said, talking about fair dealing and land being taken away.

Neither is the case. The land is not being taken away, it's being... A fair price is being given. But there is hope it might be a higher value. That seems to me, if we live in a society where we are trying to do the best, both for the individual and for society or communities, that that is a fair way of looking at things. It is getting that balance right. I have high regard the importance of property rights, but also the importance of having public facilities and amenities that benefit the whole community.

And it's that balance I community. And it's that balance I was seeking to question today. So, with those comments, my Lords, and I am sorry, the noble Baroness, the Minister, I hope she will have considered the importance of public recreation, for sport in general recreation. By the time I get to report stage. But for now, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?. The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Baroness Pinnock? Not moved? 210, Lord Roborough, not moved. The Lord Roborough, not moved. The question is clause 105 stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 106 stand contents have it.

Clause 106 stand apart, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 106, amendment 211, Lord Roborough, not moved. Then we come to 212, Lord moved. Then we come to 212, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Goldsmith of Richmond Park. I beg to move this amendment, 212, in the absence of my noble
18:04
Lord Randall of Uxbridge Portrait Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
212, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Goldsmith. I added my name to this, Lord Goldsmith sends his apologies to the House, because he is detained elsewhere and cannot behave today. I am also grateful, as he has, for my noble friend, Baroness Coffey and Lord Hintze who also added their names to this particular amendment. At the beginning of our deliberations today, the government whip exalted as for swift debates, and a swift amendment, so I'm hoping the government yet again.

This is the subject we have discussed on the levelling up bill. And as mentioned at second reading, this is a simple amendment. Which is probably why I unable to speak to it. Because what it is asking for is that a swift break, which is allowing a swift to essentially breathe in eight, is a new build, and I point that out because some people may have said it is not always appropriate. I am sure members of this House know all about it.

Very briefly, these are migrants who come here, quite late, normally April or May, having flown all the way from sub Saharan Africa and that sort of thing. They do not stop, they fly, the only time they actually get on the ground, well, not the ground, when they are not flying, is when they are nesting. These poor swifts have been declining in numbers. There may be a variety of reasons, lack of insects and so forth. But one of the reasons that has been identified, is because the success of insulation in houses, with cavity insulation, means that the nesting areas where they would normally go under eaves or whatever, are not there.

So you can imagine these poor swifts, they have flown all the way from the Congo, looking forward to going into this building that generations of swifts have been going to and they find it is effectively blocked up. So, the simple thing we are asking for is this, a swift brick is not made mandatory, but in Building Regulations. It might be that it is suggested, it could be planning policy, I don't think that is sufficient enough. And I can't understand quite why the government is, and I say that, because the previous government was a little bit shy on this as well.

And I know that some people think it is maybe overregulation or burdensome or whatever. And I heard it whispered. I couldn't believe it is true. That there is lobbying from developers and builders. I can't believe, in any way, that could influence any government. So, I'm just asking the government to reconsider. Now, there is actually a great opportunity, is actually a great opportunity, because just literally a year ago, I think it is by a few days, campaigners, Lord Goldsmith, my noble friend, the swift campaigner, and others, I will not mention them all, met with the then Secretary of State of DEFRA, one Steve Reed, the honourable Steve Reed.

And he actually said that they were pushing at an open door, because very often, DEFRA have always been in favour, because they are the friends of the environment. But sometimes, the departments get in the way, so this is a great opportunity for a convert to swift bricks being now in the ideal position to sanction this particular thing. So I am hoping will be able to be done, has been done in Gibraltar and elsewhere. Other birds, house sparrows which are not as common as they used to be, could also utilise them.

So, it's a very good measure, I think. And I would say, finally, on this particular matter, to the government benches, that I get a feeling that some of the nations in this bill have not been quite to the flavour of environmental groups and members of the public to think that their language on bats and newts was a little bit extreme. So I would say, in that same spirit of helping the government, regardless of the political party, I would say, in order to help them, to get a pass, a win-win, this is the ideal time to allow this and to put this in the bill.

So, I will also say, there are some other amendments. Amendments to hundred 25, in my name as well, we have 338 and 227, GA, I support them all but I want to make sure this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a swift debate as well. Amendment proposed, rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, rather silently. After clause 106, insert silently. After clause 106, insert the following new clause is printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled list. Thank you, my Lords, I also support all the amendments in this
18:09
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
support all the amendments in this group which would support the government to help nature in this bill by making the places we bill for humans also places that at least minimise harm to wildlife and in the case of swift breaks, could actually help it. I'm going to speak to Amendment 225 in my name, thanks to noble Lords who have also put their names to it and support it. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance on bird safe design of buildings, and to ensure new buildings, and significant changes to existing, but not exempted heritage buildings, incorporates guidance as far as is practicable.

Incorporating this amendment would not only bring the United Kingdom into alignment of what is seen in other jurisdictions around the world, but would make the UK the first to introduce national biosafety legislation. Something that could also provide a welcome positive message for the government to be about the project. -- To be able to project. I know there are broader environmental concerns with this bill and we will start coming until some of those later tonight but the potential positive effects of the symbol amendment are enormous.

Remember the number of birds thought to be killed by flying into glass buildings in the UK is 30 million per year. At the problems are simple, firstly, birds cannot see glass. Not clear glass or glass that is reflecting nearby trees or skies, it is a hazard. And secondly, at night, artificial lighting, particularly in tall buildings, can disorientate migrating birds, making them end up circling the lights until they are exhausted and crashing to the building. The solutions are also simple and well researched and legislated for in many places.

I've been able to base the wording on this amendment of that of many of jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has mandated bird safe standard since 2011. Washington, DC, new law, Portland Oregon, Toronto, Calgary, Hess, is Europe. And there are bird safe design guidance based on years of research that can provide an easy reference from the United States, Canada, Singapore, and we have experts in the UK as well. They all agree on some simple features of buildings to avoid, essentially ones that make it look like a bird can fly through safely to reach sky or a purge in the tree, but where there was actually a sheet of lethal glass.

These can be removed through thoughtful architectural design, or even use bird safe glass. Which is simply glass made visible to birds either through packets that we can also see, or patterns that reflect ultraviolent, which are visible to -- Invisible to us but visible to birds. And they show patterns with lines thinner than 2mm and no wider than 50mm apart, can effectively stop about flying into glass. More than 90% reduction in collisions in tests. These test centres can therefore certified bird safe glass and there are designs available from different manufacturers including the U.K.'s Pilkington Glass which has a -- Has a certified variety.

Many cities around the world have lights out times and even New York's twin tower memorial beams get switched off. During bird migrations to help the birds escape its fatal attraction. In the UK, awareness of this problem and its simple solutions are surprisingly low, competitive off America. Experts around the world were delighted to hear from you, they think Britain is so behind on bird safe buildings despite a world leading status in so much animal welfare legislation for staff this amendment then could put us back as global leaders in having the first national bird safety legislation, and it would help put this bill in line with the animal welfare sentience act, 2022.

As the annual sentience committee has already pointed out. And it could be saving tens of millions of birds every year. The costs, producing guidelines is easy, given the plethora of resources available. But safe architectural design is also easy, once you know the guidelines. And in a double win, many of the coatings and shades that help make glass less dangerous to birds also help with thermal issues and energy efficiency and glass buildings. Add the regulations on night-time lighting could help energy efficiency to.

And the cost of glass, various depending on specifications. But manufacturers I have spoken to estimate at the moment, the cost of bird safe glass in commercial buildings is about 5% more than normal glass, about 10% more for a domestic glazing unit, but all those costs will come down quickly with scale. Not only that but bird safe glass is apparently used to be made here in the UK. With 90% of the exported to projects in China, Europe and North America. Driven by the legislation.

With the market mainly being overseas. Manufacturers have now mostly moved from the UK to Germany, to follow demand. But could return, if we caught up with bird safe legislation. So, amendment 225 seems to me to be an example of the much sought win win. I supported along in this bill along with others in the group would help demonstrate the government's commitment to helping nature and nature recovery. Alongside helping British businesses and not slowing down any housebuilding. I very much hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree. My Lords, in the absence of Baroness Grender, I move her amendment 338 and I'm grateful, as
18:15
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendment 338 and I'm grateful, as I'm sure she would be, if she were here, to support the baroness. This is where we are going to have community around the House, because we support all amendments in this group as well, so I will be swift to make a few points about the specifics of Baroness Grender's amendments, about homes for nature, at the same time as homes for people on amending building regulations to protect biodiversity in all new developments. Now, if we are going to have homes where nature can live, feed and breed, we have to do specific measures and I absolutely support what Lord Randall so well articulated in the amendment he put forward.

In the name of the noble forward. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I'm not going to talk about swift bricks, including some parts of Baroness Grender's amendments but I want to talk about some of the other, very much endangered species, which our amendment does also cover, because it covers bird boxes, that boxes, swift bricks, hedgehog highways, as well. And I am saddened that Lord Grayling is not here this evening, I joined when he stands to talk about hedgehogs, he is a fantastic champion of the species and it is easy to forget these little creatures scuttle around 4 miles nocturnally, and if there is not space within developers, particularly in urban areas, it's very difficult for them to get around.

And you can do very low-cost measures of making small spaces in fences to enable them to get around and do the breeding and feeding that they need. So, all the measures, in addition to what Lord Randall said about swift bricks, these are low- cost measures, these are not big- ticket items. And it's disappointing that we have heard from some developers are saying this would put unacceptable costs onto the cost of new homes, when people need new homes. Of course people need new homes, but I think if the public, who are deeply attached to their hedgehogs and other species, knew that the small cost and is a relatively small cost, for making these adaptions, were going to building homes for nature and designing homes for people, I think the developers would find people would be prepared to make the We on these benches very much welcome the changes the government has made so far to part three and the fact is now stronger requirement the overall improvement test and some irreplaceable habitats have been removed, but nobody could say that the changes made have delivered the overall protection that nature needs, if we are going to be able to meet our biodiversity targets, our legally binding by diverse targets, it's now more about offsetting and hope not really the certainties we have in some of the habitat regulations and by diverse teen net gain.

Building in homes for nature in the housing that we are going to be building would be a very concrete way of ensuring some future for our much loved wildlife, as Lord Randall said, this is something the public would really understand. If the government is going to move forward with the bill without further amendments to part three in the main, then in order to reassure the public that they are putting nature first and building homes for nature at the same time as building these homes and accepting these amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the way to go. I rise to give the green group
18:18
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to give the green group strongest possible support for all of the amendments in this group. And to report that Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb I'm pleased to say is Moulsecoomb I'm pleased to say is recovering well for from her operation last week, but if there is one amendment she is going to regret not being here for it is amendment 212 about swift bricks. She is very passionate about swift and any wonder, these amazing creatures top speed of 110 kilometres per hour, travelling 5,000 -- 5,000 does each way for their migrations, they are the long distance athletes.

They are making that journey and then finding nowhere to raise their young. That's the reality of what we buy our actions have created and of course they are now red listed. Lord Randall has a ready set this out very clearly and carefully and the other noble Ladies have already said a lot here, I'm just going to note that when we debated a very similar amendment in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act Baroness Taylor of Stevenage then on the opposition benches said she was delighted to see the amendment from Lord Goldsmith, that it was justified by the unique nature of these precious birds and their nesting habits and hence the -- it had the Labour Party's full support.

Can we get to that please? This is such a small that please? This is such a small measure. Why not? It is such a tiny action, a small cost. Yet if you were a swift this is not a small thing. This is a matter of life or extinction. There is a lot of discussion and the other amendments come to other things we need to do but the situation of swift is but the situation of swift is unique. I will fully back the hedgehog highways and the gaps in fences and other simple things, but the swift bricks is just so simple.

Coming on again to already clearly introduced by Baroness Freeman two to five, birds safe buildings. Just add a couple of points to this, the British trust for Royal ornithology has done a great deal of work on this estimating 100 million birds crashing to windows of buildings in the UK each year about one third of them die as a result. That is a huge toll that is almost invisible. This was back in 2022 the BTO did some research looking at planning rules, the local planning rules, essentially there is no protection in any of our major cities, our major communities.

I will take noble Lords back to, because this was a case study that illustrates what's happening on a day-to-day basis, but it happened in one day so it really made an impact. This was back in 2023 in Chicago. It was a result of citizen science efforts that went on one day collected all of the sad carcasses of more than 1,000 birds that had flown into one building in the US. You might recall the pictures, just a huge array of bird bodies laid out.

As we set out then some very simple measures would have stop that happening, the measures this amendment calls for. I come finally to amendment 227 GAA which is in my name which has considerable similarities to the amendment already introduced by Baroness Parminter but perhaps goes a little Parminter but perhaps goes a little further. It says that with -- within 18 months of this act and I'm allowing more time, this is more about the need for safe swift regulations under the building act to protect the safety of, to provide opportunities for living and speeding space for mammals, birds Talk about the need for resource for plants.

The inspiration for this, this probably isn't unique, probably fairly unusual, it comes from an exhibition now still on, I would urge noble Lords to go and see it, at the design Museum. It's called more than human, it's the first major exhibition of the growing movement of the more than human design, new generation of designers who understand that humans can only flourish alongside other activities and systems. It's part of the future observatory, the design Museum's national research program for the green transition. Just give what example, of the kind of thing this By Andre Jaap, the trans-species raise that, a piece of the faade, a building made of cork that is ideal for mosses and grasses and petit and mould.

Normally when we design the faade of a building it is designed to be impermeable, to stop anything growing, to keep everything out. What if we turned that round and start to think about what a different kind of society would look like? Very briefly I also mention the sculpture for octopuses, experimental to see what colours octopuses liked and made the artwork as a result of that. I'm going to conclude with one something from my youth. Recollection. In 1988 I was a young journalist and Australia were celebrating, some Australians were celebrating the bicentenary, the 200th anniversary of the start of the genocide of the aboriginal people and the massive destruction of the environment of Australia that followed as well.

They opened the Australian Parliament building and almost immediately it was the Bogong moth migrator is season and the building filled up with moths. Nobody had thought about this. They bought British Western design traditions and plonk them down in Australia and that was the result. I bring us forward now so many decades later, the Bogong moths which the aboriginal communities for over centuries had feasted on, had eaten but also protected, the moth is now on the RUC red list as gravely endangered.

Something that only decades ago was just en masse is now threatened with extinction. We have to stop making buildings that have that kind of impact.
18:25
18:26
18:28
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
accept it. I do that for the following two reasons. First, swifts are not the only migratory bird comeback onto migration, but secondly I think that if the government concede to swifts they will be able to say we've done something, we have pleased the environmental lobby and now we don't need to do anything more. A typical reaction of government. I am more attracted by amendment 225 and 227 a. Baroness Stevenson reminded us that 30 million birds in the UK get killed on migration.

In America it's up to 1 billion, in Canada it's over 40 million. In this country not as many deaths as cats because to birds -- cause to birds. It is significant number and therefore I think we need to look at the subject much more holistically. On the question of migration it is a huge problem and was identified by Baroness Bennett when she talked about the convention centre in Chicago. I would just like to put a PS to 1,000 birds in a single night, since they have done simple remedial work of applying small white dots in a two inch grid pattern to the surface of Windows has been a 95% reduction in fatalities during migration..

That is a bonus for the environment and for biodiversity that we should aim for. I want to stress, mention one other thing that noble Lords have mentioned, that is the planting round buildings. It has been proven that birds get very confused by some types of hedging and trees, because when that is reflected in the glass it orientate the birds. -- Disorient their we are pressing for more trees and shrubbery and greenery I think we need to be very careful that we are not just building in deaths to birds in the process.

I hope we can take a more holistic, the government will take a holistic look at this and actually do something that benefits biodiversity and benefits the birds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually is the first time I had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on surviving the Defra Minister on surviving the Defra I am absolutely delighted and I hope I am absolutely delighted and I hope she enjoys all of her female colleagues and the attempts to colleagues and the attempts to improve the environment. I support all of these attempts and, as she all of these attempts and, as she has said, what other opportunity for housebuilders to improve the environment for £10 a time for each house.

There is no argument against house. There is no argument against it from a cost point of view but it it from a cost point of view but it is only half of the story and, as I said in a previous amendment, we can said in a previous amendment, we can make all of the regulations that we like but if the enforcement does not like but if the enforcement does not
18:32
18:33
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
matters in a particular way and the reason I say that is, in terms of conservation, they have moved from green to amber in 2009, moved to read in 2015 and then there has been a 62% decline. My noble friend set out admirably that some of this is looked at in terms of food and some of it in terms of places to rest. I of it in terms of places to rest. I tried in the House of Commons to make the case and also as a member of Parliament and I just represent parts of the east coast of the country which have a sloping point for many migratory birds and Felixstowe Port, the birds have liked to guide them home and is a prominent place for migratory birds, leading to the excellent reserve, which is well known, as well as up the coast in terms of the world- famous RSPB reserve there.

I'm conscious of the alignment tabled by Lady Freeman of Steventon and I would not want to turn them all into a guard base and all rights are needed for security, we should not have them for the sake of it. Councils can't this in the plan that buildings are supposed to have it in the plan but they do not enforce it in East Sussex. We come back to the age old issue of it adding cost to development are not being convenient, all those things, my Lords, we must take action to stop this decline of this species and many others and then conscious there is a wider element and the estimated cost of this is between £20-35 and I do not believe it is genuinely about profitability because frankly that would be hard to swallow in terms of consideration of the cost of a particular house.

The Minister, when in opposition, thought that this would be a slam dunk and it has been another easy decision for the new Secretary of State to make. In the past, it was the Treasury that helped these things up but I am trying to think of... Yes, there is another bird similar to a swift and that is the house margin and so I'm saying, give us a happy hour and I will try to get the swifts going for the future for everyone.

the future for everyone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate the Baroness from last week and I'm delighted to repeat that today. I have repeat that today. I have considerable sympathy for amendment considerable sympathy for amendment 212. I saw the press last week that 212. I saw the press last week that my noble friend had been married and I have heard he has been detained in I have heard he has been detained in the other place. Moving swiftly on, the swifts are met percent birds but the swifts are met percent birds but in the UK we have experienced severe population decline with numbers
18:37
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
population decline with numbers falling by 60% from 1995-2022. They are birds of conservation concern and there is a drop in suitable nesting sites in buildings and a reduction in supply. Modern buildings like the crevasses and cavities that swifts need and building conditions can destroy existing nests and they are survival is threatened and their ability to raise young has been impacted. I had the privilege of serving on the council and going to Strasbourg four times a year and it's amazing how many swifts use Eviatar and that is in the old parts where there are thousands of these buildings and there are holes all over the roofs and it is perfect for swifts and last year we were infested and this year we can watch hundreds and hundreds of them swooping and diving and there are no midis or mosquitoes and they have the right facility to nest and they had down there.

The cost is roughly £30. You can get more expensive ones but they are not necessary. The government are saying they will make it compulsory for buildings to have swift bricks but that will drive up the cost of housing and local housing is popular and the bricks have to be higher than 5m above ground. Even if 300,000 houses were suitable and the idle boxes were installed, we are looking at £90 per house, or £80 million for the whole project. The green levy for the fanatical drive for next year will add further costs and from April 1, the average household has an increase of £9.25 to monthly bills and that £111 is far in excess of the cost of swift bricks.

The government is splashing out about £700,000 on subsidising heat lamps and has paid out over £148 million and the applications have been made with additional funding and are planning to bring the total up to £1.5 billion until March, 2020. £1.5 billion for inadequate heating pumps. Not tell us that a brick will drive up housing costs? I look forward to giving the answers from the Minister about that. I'm not up to speed on the cost of the safety glass but I can comment on the comments from the can comment on the comments from the Isle of Caithness.

We plant a lot of trees near the windows and they are full of nesting birds and then we found the reflection in the glass is causing bird strikes and the problem can be solved and there has been a drop of 90%, lower hundred percent, no deaths. I'm not sure if it is a solution but you can stop the bird deaths in the ordinary houses and this is with cheap equipment from the RSPCA. As far as amendment 38, I can only make a personal comment but if colleagues wish to go to the new government building which houses a passport office, Natural England, and the for you, they will find a green wall and this came about when I served a few years ago and the new government building was designed and the design was shared with organisations who occupy it and they boasted that the windows were 100% net zero, the air conditioning, everything else.

I asked if they had any greenery and they said they had not thought of that and then we were told they could not do it with the drift because of air conditioning and other things. I do not suggest it should be compulsory or that there should be a law which would drive up enormous cost but if organisations are willing, the solution is quite simple.
18:41
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate on planning features around birds and other wildlife and I thank the noble Lords for the very kind welcome for the fact I am still here in front of you today and I'm grateful to Lord Goldsmith for grateful to Lord Goldsmith for tabling the First Amendment and to Lord Randall for introducing it so swiftly and beautifully and I think Lady Freeman, Lady Grender for her email amendment and to the Baroness and also to Lady Bennett for the amendments which seeks to mandate the use of swift bricks and requires measures to prevent bird fatalities and a range of measures to support wildlife.

The protection of species is crucial to ensuring the health of ecosystems and the growth of natural capital and I support the objective of increasing biodiversity and ensuring new development contributes positively to nature. The government acknowledges the dramatic decline that we have heard about using this debate alongside many of our other most precious wildlife and we are committed to recovery while building the homes we desperately need. Lord the homes we desperately need. Lord Randall mentioned being converted to swift books.

I assure him that I am already converted to swift bricks and other areas that can be used in the building to increase wildlife. What we are looking at is how you go about achieving this, not whether or not we support it in principle because, in principle, we do. We do not believe building regulations are the best way to achieve the objective and providing habitat for protected species alongside homes and this is because UK building regulations are primarily focused on safeguarding the health, safety, well-being of individuals in and around buildings and have not historically been applied to the protection of wildlife or biodiversity.

Expanding the scope to biodiversity. Expanding the scope to include measures aimed at conserving species would represent a significant shift in regulatory intent and expansion would place considerable additional pressure on assisting the adaption to the enhanced requirements introduced by the Building Safety Act. The planning system is the more appropriate route, we believe, to secure the outcomes and the existing protections and planning policy support wildlife-friendly features in and around buildings to improve biodiversity at the national design guidance also has site-specific measures to support the net aims at the neighbourhood, Street, and household level and encourages the protection and improvement of existing areas of biodiversity, including through wildlife-friendly features.

Many animals in England are already protected by law and development proposals need to consider these proposals and that varies from species to species. We expect local authorities to use advice published by Natural England to see a planning application would harm or to stop a protected species and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is an offence to kill or injure or disturb wild birds. I draw the attention of the birds. I draw the attention of the Bulldogs to the National Planning Policy Framework.

-- Noble Lord. My global friend mentioned this and it's important to point out the National Planning Policy Framework sits within a statutory framework and the new National Planning Policy Framework will continue to evolve and mentions enhancing the natural environment and will continue to do this and one aspect is minimising impact and providing net gains for biodiversity including by incorporating features that support priority for threatened species like swifts, bats, hedgehogs. The reason this is in the revised framework is my noble friend wished for this and it is because of her consideration and the consideration of items like swifts X that this is within the National Planning Policy Framework.

I give my honourable friend for the Since 2044, Biodiversity Net Gain has been mandatory for new plane commissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in adversity value. There are many examples of developers, particularly larger developers, responding positively to this requirement where they have designed their site layouts to deliver more habitat on site in order to attract wildlife. And at report stage of this bill, in the other place, we did announce that we will be consulting on changes which require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings.

We have published updated planning practice guidance, setting out how these features are expected to be used and signposting to further information such as the to further information such as the British industry standard. Natural England's green if a structured framework includes specific guidance for developers on how to support biosecurity. And features for wildlife are being rolled out across the country. Future homes hub has 29 house buildings, builders, including Barrett, David Wimpey, Persimmon and they are signed up to its homes for nature scheme.

This is a voluntary commitment to install a bird nesting brick or box and hedgehog highway for every new home built. The scheme represents a large chunk of the market as in total this company is built over 100,000 homes in 2022/23. So while I thank noble Lords for the amendments, there is existing legislation in place to protect vulnerable species and that combined with the measures in the National Planning Policy Framework mean that we remain of the view that cunning policy is the best mechanism to ensure development proposals consider wildlife.

I kindly ask therefore noble Lords beg leave to withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would also, I'm a bit remiss, not congratulating the noble Lady not congratulating the noble Lady the Minister remaining in post. Prime Ministers make from time to Prime Ministers make from time to time crazy decisions, I have seen it happen. But nothing would have been happen. But nothing would have been more crazy than to remove the noble Lady from her position, so that's
18:49
18:50
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Portrait Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
-
-
Is it your lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

213, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I a not so far spoken the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I a not so far spoken the committee stage of this bill. But in my four minutes contribution I my four minutes contribution I raised two issues which are the subject of these next two subject of these next two amendments. One may be described as being in the weeds and the other in the stratosphere and perhaps I should begin with the weeds. Amendment 213 is about footpath. And Amendment 213 is about footpath. And I have three asks to make of the government.

The footpath issue is government. The footpath issue is one which the cross-party groups of members of your Lordship's House members of your Lordship's House have been following, chasing down might be a better word for many years. I'm grateful to the support years. I'm grateful to the support for two of the support, Baroness Scott and noble Lord Lord Thurlow, Scott and noble Lord Lord Thurlow, the noble Baroness got asked me to give apologies she cannot be here give apologies she cannot be here this evening and I'm sorry that the Baroness Hayman has left the chamber because of course we had extensive debates on the footpath issue when debates on the footpath issue when she had her responsibilities and I wish her well in her new role.

However, one name is missing and that is of that noble Lord Lord Rosser from the Labour government benches. And I hope the House will forgive me if I add a short personal note, the noble Lord Rosso was a supporter of the cause over many years and despite his increasing frailty and looking exceptionally unwell he came possibly to speak for the last time in support of a regret mission I had tabled. It is of course quite right that when one of us leaves your Lordship's House, the water should close over us quietly, and soundlessly, but I wanted on this occasion for one last time to record my thanks to Lord Rosser for his support over the years.

Without my Lords to horse. And first I need to declare an interest as a member of the Ramblers which campaigns on behalf of footpath and open access and I'm currently making use of our footpath by walking from Land's End to John O'Groats, in stages, hasten to add. And I'm just reaching Inverness. And in the thousand miles have so far covered have seen at first hand how network of public right-of-way provides physical and mental support in effect of the soul and even if after seven hours of the road the fee and the muscles may be struggling.

The National Parks and access to the countryside act of 1949 required local authorities to provide prepare official records of public right-of-way known as definitive maps. And as a result, some 120,000 miles of rights-of-way were recorded in England. That leads me to my first task. The reason for the little seen my amendment, preservation, is to get the noble Lord, the banister Minister's commitment that nothing in the bill will be allowed to end the network of these paths in whole or in part.

The key word is network. Because if a path can be brought to an end, even for a few hundred yards, the utility and value of the surrounding paths is greatly reduced. So could the Minister confirm that visions of this bill will not put at risk this important national asset, that is the primary means by which the public can get outdoors. That is my first task. There is a further challenge. While recording of 120,000 miles footpath was a terrific achievement, research suggests that some 40,000 further miles were not recorded and therefore remain unprotected.

There are over 3,000 miles in Cornwall, and just under 3,000 miles in Herefordshire. The countryside and of 2,000 attended to bring this issue to a conclusion by setting a deadline for applications to be submitted to local highway authorities for adding these hitherto unrecorded rights-of-way to the official maps -- the act of 2000. The deadline was set for 25 years later, three months from now. After that date, applications for adding topic rights-of-way based upon historic evidence will no longer be possible in any of those miles would be lost forever.

Progress in reporting : recording those miles, was disappointing. Why? Because the first local authorities had many other useful funds, and found it hard to justify the initial resources into this activity. The second because the actual process of recording is rather clunky and expensive, both in actual financial but as well as management time and effort. I have had first-hand experience of that because my family company owns a few acres of land in Shropshire where we had to have a diversion of the footpath and took, although it was not contested, took over three years to she.

I thank the Shropshire County Council, they had to work to existing systems. And this evidence suggests that many councils can only process to a three applications every year. At one point, a working party or interested stakeholders, stakeholder working group, were set up to streamline the system but it seems to have gone know. So my second task of the Minister does that still exist and does it have any role in the government as to how to speed up this recording process? Finally, as the deadline of first of January 26 comes closer, I together with a cross-party member of the group of you Lordship's House began to campaign for permanent solution.

Add first looked as though we had success. In February first looked as though we had success. In February 2022, the Conservative government announced the deadline would be abolished entirely. But a year later, March 23, presumably after lobbying by landowners and farmers, the decision was reversed and instead by regulation the deadline was extended by five years, that is still first of January, 2031. In my view an exercise in pushing the P around the plate device on. The New Labour government announced it would fulfil the undertaking of the Conservative government to repeal the deadline but could only do so when in that hello phrase, Parliamentary time allows.

-- hello phrase. This bill does provide voluntary time with which the government could fulfil that commitment so my third and final ask is whether the government is prepared to bring forward amendments of this bill to fulfil the commitment they have given to remove the recording deadline forever. But if the government cannot accept an answer by Christians, perhaps the call except amendment to 13 which provides for review in six months at least it enables Lordship's House to monitor progress on this important matter.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 106, insert the following new clause, and the words as printed in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled list. My Lords, having had such

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, having had such eloquent advocacy for the swifts, eloquent advocacy for the swifts, and other birds, I want to make a case for humans in this particular case for humans in this particular amendment, two and three. I will amendment, two and three. I will explain. -- 213. I thank Lord Hodgson for tabling this amendment
18:59
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
Hodgson for tabling this amendment and I'm very keen to support him. My particular interest is to actively promote the case for restoration of ancient rights-of-way, the unregistered ones that we have heard about already. And I declare my interest as the owner of the property with a right-of-way laced right through the middle of the family farm. I'm very grateful also to the Ramblers Association for their briefing. In considering this we should start from the premise that rights-of-way, whether they are registered or not, are a national asset.

They belong to that nation. The citizens. Individuals. No reasons were given for the case that we have heard about to create, to support the need for certainty that these rights-of-way, unregistered ones, were going to be terminated or were going to be disallowed in future. The only certainty was the UK citizens would be stripped of their property rights because in that we discovered but unregistered place, these rights-of-way would have been disallowed. What possible benefit to the community arises from disallowing the registration of rights-of-way.

As we have heard, on Boxing Day, for some inexplicable reason, last Christmas, the government quietly announced that they were stepping in to save the lifting of the curfew or the end lifting of the curfew or the end Is this government committed to repealing the deadline or not? If they do mean what they say, and I have no doubt that is the intention, this bill is the place to enshrine the promise. Will the Minister and noble Lord confirm it will adopt the amendment or explain how else they wish to deal with it.

It is easy to enact. All that they have to do is have a cut off date. This is the bill to do it. We all know that the government policy on both sides of the house is to open up the countryside to all and this is of significant mental health benefits to urban dwellers and others. There is a desire that citizens of towns and cities have easy access to the countryside and they are surrounded by the flora and fauna in the wonderful countryside.

The amendment appealed directly to that ambition and this is not keen on this but they are finding the subsidy linked to the greater good of the environment on the whole. It is a further reason to open this up and to not deliver on the Boxing Day promise, the Christmas present to the nation, obviously, to disallow the unregistered rights, is the shameless equivalent of compulsory acquisition without compensation, to society. I hope the Minister accepts the amendment 213 because it delivers the commitment to rediscovered footpaths and I look
19:03
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
rediscovered footpaths and I look rediscovered footpaths and I look I rise to speak I rise to speak briefly I rise to speak briefly on I rise to speak briefly on amendment 213 which probes the potential 213 which probes the potential including those currently unrecorded including those currently unrecorded but due to be extinguished at the end of 2030 and this has been the end of 2030 and this has been the matter of interest and concern among landowners and local authorities and landowners and local authorities and landowners and local authorities and the cut off date originally proposed under the Countryside Rights of Way Act and later extended to 2030 was intended to provide certainty and this rightly encourages the this rightly encourages the government to clarify and the provisions of the bill will interact provisions of the bill will interact with the deadline and particularly the ongoing digitisation of the process and heavy planning reforms may affect local authorities.

There may affect local authorities. There are undoubtedly historic rights of way not identified on the map and given the effort that has been put in, perhaps one might assume that these rights-of-way are defunct. They were established by a process of establishing the rights. Surely they would establish through leisure use the way that travel and commerce was conducted in the country and so it is unhelpful to planning and infrastructure delivery as well as farmers that the claims can be brought at any time and can take considerable time and resources to resist.

I urge the government to stick to the existing deadline and the amendment 213 prompts worthwhile discussion and I think the review in six months is worthwhile considering to ensure rights are detected. I thank my honourable friend for tabling it. I look forward to hearing the government's response. hearing the government's response.
19:05
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble friend for the amendment and I thank him for his kind comments about the noble Lord. We still miss him very much. The government announced on Boxing Day 2024 the intention to repeat will be cut off date for recording historic rights of way which means this can continue to be officially recorded after the date. This is a significant step to preserve access to build use pass, many of which have been in use for many years.

This allows them to be accessed and enjoyed by the public and there must be an improvement plan explaining how to preserve them and provide a better experience for users and given the statutory duty placed on local authorities, we believe a thorough and meaningful review would not be possible and local authorities are handling a significant volume of registrations and the requirement to conduct the review would result in further delays to the process. In addition, the repeal of the cut-off date means historic rights of way can still be recorded.

It can continue to be enjoyed by the public and to pick up a couple of questions asked by the noble Lord, I do not know the answer but I will check if it is still in place because working parties like us to shape government policy and in relation to this, I suspect a great deal of consultation would have to be carried out and that is why it is not in the act but I will respond to him in right thing and, for these reasons, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I say to my noble friend that the reality is unrecorded does that the reality is unrecorded does not mean I used and I mentioned over
19:08
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Portrait Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
-
-
not mean I used and I mentioned over 3000 miles of path in Cornwall and 700,000 in Herefordshire are unrecorded and so I do not think he is right to say they are not recorded they are unused. I believe that is the case with some but I do not think it gets to the heart of the matter and I am grateful to the Minister for re-establishing and reaffirming the intention to bring forward legislation that will enable this to be moved better and I am sorry she cannot put it into the bill and I look forward to rectifying a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I urge them to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leaf withdrawn. Amendment 14.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now move to the stratosphere and I begin by expressing some and I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Minister and Department because they are being asked to provide for a large number of additional people and to do so without upsetting those people who are already here and the communities are already here and the communities and the environment is going to be a radical shift for everyone. A couple of numbers are worthwhile putting on the record for this issue and to my the record for this issue and to my amendment.

Expecting the population to increase by 6.6 million people by 2035 is the equivalent of 2.5 cities the size of greater Manchester and by 2040, the country will have by 2040, the country will have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe. Germany populous country in Europe. Germany is 1.5 times our size. With regards to the population pressure, we have not seen anything yet. Let me be clear, this is absolutely not a rant or an attack on refugees or asylum seekers.

The clearly problems to be addressed at those unfortunate people make up less than 10% of the total population. The major reason for the growth are British industries' insatiable desire to recruit overseas and the issues with the advisory committee and British higher education which has built a business model on overseas recruit and many of whom move into the permanent population during the degree and the consequence of the increases and decisions ricochets around Whitehall and impacts nearly every aspect of national life.

And for the Minister's department, the policy of housing can best be described as, "Please empty the bath but you cannot touch the tap." That is why it is difficult to tackle. As Lord Rooker said, no one anywhere in government, this government or the previous government, it is possible and amendment 214 is an attempt, for once, to join two of them because amendment 214 is about the security of stations and in February, with the war in Europe in 1945, the cabinet was ready to receive a report that the country still had food reserves for about two months and 80 years later, how long would they last? Essentially, 2-3 days.

Modern supply trains are run for modern capital. They carry about modern capital. They carry about We currently draw just over half of the food. When this bill is enacted. There is the loss of yet more land available for food. We are dealing with houses, solar panels, and we with houses, solar panels, and we grow maize and crops to generate electricity in pursuit of net zero. The population is growing by 500,000 if a year.

We are in a confused and uncertain and ever more dangerous situation. With the exception of farmers and groups like the NFU, the discussion of food security and our ability to feed the population is nowhere to be seen. What is the reason for the silence on this issue? I think essentially it is between because it falls between two stools of different government departments. It is the child of the Department of Housing and Community and Local Government because it has the responsibility for food.

Food is the responsibility of Defra, the Department for the Environment, Food, Rural Affairs, but they have no impact in planning decisions. My amendment is an attempt to join up the dots by requiring the Secretary of State to write annually and write an account of the land for food production and a brief word about 5 foot security should be an issue of increasing concern. For the past couple of centuries, the economic theory of comparative advantage has dominated Treasury thinking and, in turn, had a major influence on government policies.

The theory of comparative advantage argues that the country will be better off if it specialises in producing what it is specialises in producing what it is best at producing. So, to accept the theory, it follows we do not have to worry about the fact we will produce half of the food we eat because we can buy the remainder on the world market more cheaply than we can produce it ourselves. In a stable and ordered world, this theory might work but our God is increasingly not so.

Yes, it is -- world is not so. It is a market under strain. First, just as the UK population is growing, so is the world's. Over the next 50 years, we expect it to grow by 2.4 billion people, 175,000 every day. Every time people look in the mirror, another 175,000 people on The volume of food on the world market may be reduced and the price high. The second challenge is getting the food from where it is produced to the consumer here in the UK.

Over half the world's trade goes through a handful of what are known as checkpoints. Some are instantaneously recognised, the Panama Canal. Others, for example the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea, which Russia attempted to use to restrict trade experts, are less well-known. For freedom of the seas, is particularly important to the United Kingdom and an unstable world increases the risk of some checkpoints being closed. And that is a good reason why the NFU campaigned for food security to be included and recognised in our National Security Strategy.

Meanwhile, accelerated climate change is having a dramatic and packed on grain patterns, farmers in this country are bracing for a second year of poor harvest after successive heatwaves which are becoming more and more common. More people can be expected to result in reduced countries taking steps to protect their own populations, as has already happened in India where Prime Minister Modi has restricted exports of Basmati rice. Meanwhile, in this country the consequences both at a personal and national level become ever more obvious.

Various ways to improve public- health such as recommendations to eat five portions of fruit and read -- vegetables per day are increasingly dependent on overseas suppliers and therefore also increase the risk to food security. We are fooling ourselves when we think this country has a high degree of self sufficiency in wheat and production. We cannot produce at home enough to feed our domestic heard. The single largest item is the import of 16 billion tonnes of animal food and a cost of 5.5 a cost of £5.5.

This will have required 850,000 acres of land that could produce what could this be called ghost acres of united kingdom, mostly in Brazil. Chuck in a black swan event and I hope the House can appreciate why this is an increasingly important policy area that requires joint government thinking. So that is why I hope the government will take this amendment seriously. I don't see proposed plans to help achieve our climate change goals but I argue strongly that we need to ensure that a balance is maintained, as I said you cannot eat solar panels.

So to help achieve that balance, I think there needs to be an annual report to Parliament on how much food producing agricultural land is being lost to each of the four categories listed by the amendment, the construction of housing, the construction of reservoirs, the insulation of solar panels, and the production of crops, not for consumption but that generate illiteracy. And last but not least, to respond to the increasing worries about food security, Sokoto State should be required to make an assessment for an increased risk to our food security which are the results of the mentation of the provisions of this act.

-- Implementation. This issue deserves much process scrutiny and we cannot much process scrutiny and we cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and should not be complacent. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause 106, insert the new clause, review 106, insert the new clause, review impact on food and water security, as did on pages 30 and 31 of the
19:20
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

as did on pages 30 and 31 of the marshalled list. Amendment 40. Are rising support of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are rising support of this amendment which the noble Lord has proposed with the powerful argument proposed with the powerful argument indeed. He is not asking for a stop to housing, he is asking for an audit so we have the information to hand. I want to make a few very quick points, quite often when it comes to housing, the isn't a choice of whether the housing comes from, most new housing elements will be adjacent to existing settlements, adjacent to sounds, villages, -- towns.

And they will be put on really good grade 1 agricultural land that will get coupled up. But to some extent is accepted but as far as food security is concerned he made a very good point indeed, the historic context. He raised briefly that Ukraine were under one lesson is looked at and learnt from it is the fact we cannot take our food security for granted. He touched on solar rays and I would suggest to the Minister that when it comes to building out solar arrays, we do indeed have choice, we don't have to assume much of the housing but surely we have choice over where we put the solar arrays and I just wanted to tell the Minister what is going on in part of my old constituency of north-west Norfolk, that there is a large wave of planning applications for solar arrays, along a 47 corridor between Swaffham and Dyrham.

And much of that is going to take in grade 1, grade 2 agricultural land and by think the serious worry I have is that we are not talking about willing seller, willing buyer, willing farmer, willing buyer, we are talking about a number of tenant farmers were going to have their livelihoods taken away, we are talking also about the possibility of some farmers who have got holdings adjacent to large landowners, who actually putting their land forward, for this development, and the company is in questions that are proposing the development have come forward with a threat of compulsory purchase order we are moving away from the willing seller, willing buyer, concept and at the same time, putting at risk the huge amount of really good agricultural land.

The Minister should look at this amendment and the spirit in which it is being drafted. Not trying to order the government what to do. My noble friend isn't trying to stop the developers, of course he was to have some modified but we need to have that information we need to have a proper audit and so support this clause wholeheartedly. I hope the Minister will realise that the damage is being done to our family communities, potential damage issues, damages been done already, and I would say to the Minister that so long as we have sites like warehouses and industrial estates, go round any new industrial estate and your not see a single solar panel.

Look at a modern school, hospital. There's a new hospital inbuilt in my constituency, there is no provision for solar panels on our watch going to be flat roads and down the road we will see the demise of first-class cultural and -- flat roofs. We need to get a grip of this and have information to hand so we can be properly informed in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future. Support noble friend. I rise to support amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment to 14. Noble Lord Millie said no more than three males away from social. But we are in the hierarchy of needs, food and belly is the number one requirement. Land is the one requirement. Land is the principal resource that provides bread, beer, biscuits as well as properly and then not making land properly and then not making land anymore, and I'm concerned because the land use framework that has been proposed by the government contemplates that 49% of our farmland will be used for non- farmland will be used for non- growing purposes.

Had the same for that solar panels, it is callous to that solar panels, it is callous to allow the best land to be consumed for non-farmland purposes, before the wetland is exhausted first. Last the wetland is exhausted first. Last year, the National wheat yield was down 20% on account of that weather. this year there are impairments on this year there are impairments on account of the dry weather. We cannot be careless about our food. Supply. The better news is that we Supply.

The better news is that we have recently heard encouraging noises from the former DEFRA noises from the former DEFRA ministers who belatedly realised the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been before and it is noteworthy that whilst we no longer have a Minister for Africa culture any more, we do have one for food security. And I think we should all welcome that provided. That the title of food security flows through Internet recognising the importance of national-security of ensuring that the greatest proportion of the food in this country can meet our needs.

I had a commercial meeting this morning with one of the UK's largest participants in the agricultural supply chain in this country and the agricultural director who I felt was a stunning statistic, he said over 30 years the amount of arable farm land has diminished in this country by 30%. My question to him -- I questioned him, 1% per year, each year for the last 30 years and he said yes. We used to count on a 50 million tonne year wheat harvest, now we are lucky to get 12.

These are big reductions with large consequences. I enthusiastically endorse amendment to hundred 14, if you're going to have a Minister for Food Security doing this arithmetic, is going to be an essential part of her task was otherwise a catchy benchmark her success? -- How can she benchmark her success. Had it been my amendment I would have asked for the data to be embellished by an assessment of the underlying agricultural land quality, the ALC, the agricultural land classification so we could work out not just the number of hectares lost but also between the most versatile and and the lower ranks.

I wonder if the noble Lord might consider enhancing the classification if he sustains it at report otherwise at committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage. I very much want to support this
19:27
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much want to support this amendment because what it is asking for is information and one of the for is information and one of the problems we have in this country is that when we don't like the answers, don't ask questions and that seems to me to be fundamental issue here. I am rather in favour of properly placed solar farms but I use the word properly placed. I also think that in many ways, at least can get them.

The problem with building houses is, you can't. And I'm very concerned about the way in which we constantly use greenfield sites instead of insisting the development already used and I have to say this government has really not. The reality which is that the housebuilding industry doesn't like anything but a greenfield site. And they will take those long before they will try to develop inside our already used towns and the like. And this is not only there for food security, it's bad for the environment because that people instead of living relatively hugger mugger able to live and move within the same area have in fact to use transport to get anywhere.

In Suffolk I come from, I see this all the time, more and more people commuting from villages which have never had the jobs, won't have the jobs, and they are commuting into towns increasingly far away. So the issue of housebuilding is crucial and we have not thought it through. Merely saying 1.5 degrees new homes Merely saying 1.5 degrees new homes over five years -- 1.5 degrees -- doesn't face the real issue. I declare an interest as a small organic farmer.

I am very concerned about the failure of the government to face food security. I'm not sure I myself would have chosen Angela Eagle for that job, the fact of the matter is, it is a very important job. But it is not one that is being faced up to. When I was Minister of agriculture, I was interviewed by Peter J, cleverest man in Europe. And he said to me, "I don't know why we have Minister of Culture because we can always buy food elsewhere in That is the current position which I am afraid has been carried on either publicly or privately, and not only by this government, but I fear my previous government to.

It is serious matter that no member of this cabinet has real cultural connections of any kind. No member represents fully agricultural seed although I'm pleased to see that the new Secretary of State for DEFRA it is an extremely intelligent and I think useful addition to the Cabinet, has actually got the most agricultural seed of any Cabinet minister. And that is called work. Anyone who knows where Wycombe is knows that the agricultural bit is knows that the agricultural bit is I say this because I believe that we are in serious trouble, not only on food reduction but that other aspect of this amendment which deals with water and in my part of the country, the local company has just announced it cannot provide any new connection for a business or extending business until 2036.

We are talking about growth. What are we doing not too face up to this. We should not be doing that without recognising what we would lose when we do it and I am not asking us not to do it but to be honest. This is why I support this amendment. It is an attempt to ask the government to provide itself and as with the ability to make choices and instead of having the situation in which we decide the district months, get on with them and look at which fits in with what and how connects with another.

I sometimes embarrass ministers by making a speech that I have no doubt has written. It is about the concern with food security and the fact that the government has got this all under control and this is an unnecessary amendment and I know that because, for 16 years, I made those speak cheese again and again. The IOC is that it will not wash. We must have the gears and unless we have them, we will get figures which will be less accurate from elsewhere and I think that the government will need them to defend their own policies and so I beg of them on behalf of the government to accept the amendment because, if she does not, they will be under pressure.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I briefly remind the House that
19:34
19:35
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

to make. I rise to speak in favour of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 214 in the name of my amendment 214 in the name of my noble friend and I thank him for the thoughtful and timely intervention. The amendment seeks to ensure the government provides angle dates on agricultural land, along with consequent risks to the food and water security of the UK and you have heard the growing concern about the pressures placed on agricultural land and particularly the cumulative effect of develop on infrastructure and develop projects for a land that has long supported food production.

Recent debates on the sizing of food and the best agricultural land have brought the issue into sharp relief and renewable energy, while vital for long-term sustainability, must not come at the cost of food security. Food security is strategic national interest from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, we have been reminded how important it is to maintain strong domestic food supply and once agricultural land is lost to development, it is not recovered and it is therefore important to look after the best agricultural look after the best agricultural land.

The principle of ensuring we do not undermine food and water security with planning reforms is one all sides of the house can support and to provide some reassurance to my noble friend, global food production has grown 0.7% per annum for decades in line with population growth and that is stable acres and in some regions like Brazil and the acres of land lost to development are most like the replaced and possibly even rainforest young cleared in Brazil and they are serious leakage and we lose agricultural land.

I look forward to the response from the Minister to this and hearing how the government intends to safeguard these interests as the build progresses and I support Lady Young on her comments on the land-use framework.
19:37
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report looking at the total area taken a different production as a result of the provisions as well as assessment of any increase in risk in the water and food security of the UK. Measures in the bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and planning delivery. In other words, the reverse in the system so it's impossible to measure if this is a result of specific measures in the bill and the government publishes regular reports of land-use change and food security including statistics from agricultural lands to residential use and the report on agricultural land over the period 2013- 22, following previous reviews by Defra and analysis on agricultural land- use change through the annual survey of Horticulture and Agriculture.

Also, looking at agriculture in the UK and the statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years and so the government has the legal requirement to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK and to address the concern driving the amendment I assure noble Lords that the government is clear that food security is national security and we understand that point which was made powerfully during the debate. In July, Defra published The Good Food Cycle as part of the strategy and this underlined the city double issues with food and there are planning measures in place to ensure nonagricultural land is encouraged and the policy framework safeguards, and I've mentioned this a couple of times, the best and most versatile times, the best and most versatile land in the agricultural land classification system and where the significant development is demonstrated to be necessary, areas with poor quality land should be preferred to those with high quality and the government has consulted from January until April of this year and this point was made by my honourable friend.

These responses are informing the framework which will be published later this year and will set out the evidence, data, tools required to safeguard agricultural land and the government does not believe new infrastructure like strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions will threaten food security but a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies and we are working with the water companies to help develop water resources and the government does not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security and the panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK and the solar roadmap sets out how much land could be taken out by solar farms as part of the committee to clean power of 2030.

Even in the most ambitious...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She has said three times now that the government does not believe. the government does not believe. Would it not be idea to check with the idea is true? She also said the idea is true? She also said because the act is in addition to other things, it is impossible to see what the effect would be an what kind of legislation can it be to put before the house when the government before the house when the government cannot tell what the effect is or nor is it prepared to measure the nor is it prepared to measure the effect when it takes place? I find this difficult to answer.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

this difficult to answer. I said out all of the measurements that are already taken measurements that are already taken in terms of the take of agricultural land. It is an important part of the land. It is an important part of the system and, in terms of solar regeneration, the roadmap sets out how much land could be taken as part how much land could be taken as part of the clean power 2030 and we only of the clean power 2030 and we only expect 0.4% of total UK land to be occupied and the solar farms can occupied and the solar farms can operate alongside them but we will set out to answer the points about the provision of solar on nondomestic building and we will set that out shortly, as we have done for domestic buildings and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment for these reasons.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for
19:43
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Portrait Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for speaking in this debate. I am sure that this can be improved with some expertise and sharp pencil. Adding to the question about water, Southern Water is introducing plans to deal with this from next year because we do not have enough water and his points are good and he is right to say that the Minister's speech, and I know that she means well, it was aspirational and it was what we hope to do and I would say that until we are able to get our arms around this issue and join the dots and look at it and think about it and explained to the English people, we will have a very difficult time and it's not party political button issue for society and I have published earlier this summer report 'Don't Stop Thinking summer report 'Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow' in which we take a centre-left think tank and I would think that we could look at the way we are handling this and it is completely helpless and it may be happening in the silo but no one is joining the dots together and it is beginning to seep into society.

Up until now, this has been a fringe effort on the extreme left and the extreme right, seeking to make trouble. If noble Lord have a moment to have a look at today's planes with the Trevor Phillips article and he says this about the march,, "The usual suspects left and right that always show up at these events took the opportunity to throw bottles at police but, for the most part, the 150,000 people who showed up to March from Waterloo across Lambeth Bridge and passed the Palace of Westminster, to Whitehall, were unaware of any commotion and only at the heart to stay to hear the speech." This was an angry an activist drought and that is the danger.

When ordinary people are ready to brave the first cold weekend of autumn at the behest of a serial conflict and self-confessed fraudster, something is wrong in the state of Britain. These are the people you meet at the country pub with the dog or having drinks at with the dog or having drinks at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If you want to push to amendment to vote or not, it has to be brief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we are moving into areas not affected. I have been commenting on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been commenting on the comments page made and I want to be clear how this was part of a wider clear how this was part of a wider issue which the House and country needs to be aware of. I withdraw the needs to be aware of. I withdraw the amendment but I give leave that I may wish to bring it back at report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

may wish to bring it back at report. Is a lot of pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. A moment to hundred 15, not moved. -- Amendment hundred 15, not moved. -- Amendment hundred 15, not moved. -- Amendment to 15. 216. Not moved. 217, Lord Cromwell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, arrives to speak to amendment 217 to which the noble
19:47
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
amendment 217 to which the noble Lords Cameron and Illingworth and Alison have added their names and they apologise they are unable to be present. This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory. It's widely accepted that the state should provided that it is carried out appropriately have the right to acquire people's homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment is not going to reopen the whole debate around that issue.

I hope that bias me a few extra minutes. Compulsory purchase order established on three assumptions, that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest, but a cost of below-market rates and upon the theory was also that it would be a lost result if a voluntary sale could not be agreed. However, anyone familiar with the process and the practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick, or cost-effective, with timelines willing to and the cost of public enquiries, surveillance, lawyers and actors on both sides, it is also widely acknowledged by professional agents regardless of which side they work for that contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis.

A consensus is often achievable but only if the acquirers 's agent works with the seller rather than acting frankly as a bully boy for the government. The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group so I will not, that again, beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up, I will not use the word sold, well below its market value, instructed to those with the compulsory power and brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.

So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, give up businesses and their land, and to do so below-market prices. My Lords, agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial and cities, governed by financial and time performance targets. Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government backed agents and ordinary citizens has created a real and growing problem with the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities.

Agents ability to compel a sale, too often means that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless to cannot realistically a full to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusions that the lack of proper constraints mean that a culture has widely grown up of strong-arming and intimidation of those forced to sell by government appointed agents. There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes fail talking about, and some of which have been spoken about, of the acquiring authority selling on the land at full market value and pocketing the profits with the agents of course paid to arrange the disposals.

To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I'm saying, you're not involved in compulsory purchase, there are three quick life cases that I'm aware of and lack clarity without -- about which I have no interest to declare. First, case one, both sides of the transaction had a ready greed voluntarily to sell one field and give right of access over an adjacent one but at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement.

The acquirers agent immediately cut off communication and when to use compulsory purchase on all the land. Second case, the farmer was approached by infrastructure provider or initial surveys, and as the land was designated ecologically sensitive he instructed the nation to prepare a bespoke license agreement to give access to that provider. The structure provider properly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice and the developer subsequent trespass then went on, the wrong property and not subject to discussion and legal proceedings followed, inevitably costing a lot for both sides and causing delays.

Kesri is a simple quote from one.. The bypass went straight to the middle of our farm, taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid we will have to pay a Capital Gains Tax at the new increased rate on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and the earth in return a fraction of what it is worth? Capital projects need to be built for the benefit of that nation, but surely in a decent and fair country those concerns should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is Upper are occupied.

They were still waiting eight years later. I would underline the many similar stories across this country. Finally cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land to the middle of their farms commandeered HS2 but still not yet had back. Matters are made worse in HS2 by the spitting responsibilities between with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders having been given three months notice to get out on not being paid for up to 9 months.

As one affected party put it, seven years after the unilaterally to Calland, were still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts. So what rules are there? The Royal Institute of chartered surveyors has published standards, baseline standards it considers should apply for people acting for the acquiring authorities and for the claimants. While I do urge noble Lord the Minister to look at and indeed publicly endorse the standards, or ICS has only got jurisdiction over its members, not for instance a nonmember profession or a project management team.

Furthermore these and other guidance rules that currently exist crucially do not, two things that loom large in practical commercial experience. Providing an venting pulling tactics and also... Prompt payment when due. We cannot go on and on out of this problem and that is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice to negotiate and agree values subtract in good faith with the possibility of compulsion generally as the last result rather than the starting point.

-- Last resort. I posed two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house or land or business only to find themselves used non-payment by the acquirer with no money to buy another house or to have part of the business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the government announcement that it is going to be issuing financial policies to persistently buying businesses should include penalties on late paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the government.

This amendment by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice would both provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, and always concerned not just about us making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement. And it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely. I look forward please both to the noble Lord the Minister's reply to my two questions and I asked the government to except the simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, physically before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers.

I mentioned also that this is going to combat report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And proposed, amendment proposed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And proposed, amendment proposed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And proposed, amendment proposed, Before I introduce the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I introduce the amendment in my name, I think the noble Lord Cromwell has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late
19:57
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
purchase, particularly that of late payment and I will just wait for the noble Baroness minister's response to that. Because there is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord Cromwell explained, between individuals of the state, if the state doesn't play fairly by the rules. So with those comments, amendment 219 in my name and co- signed by the Noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, is on the face of it quite radical. However, all cars is to put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permission which they have obtained.

Planning consent, already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable for housebuilders seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least begin to start construction. Members from all sides note that there is a desperate need for more housing, or political party have made the case for more housing in different numbers.

Per annum. But it's not the numbers game that we are after, it's about the building of the important. And the ONS have estimated that there are already one point 1.2 million outstanding permissions for million outstanding permissions for housing units as yet unbuilt. I'm not going to use that word land banking, because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations that have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on.

The reasons are obviously quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks. But nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes. So just from experience, what some housebuilders do business. They can delay the start of the building within the three-year period by constantly stop starting the process, and they do this by putting in applications for minor changes of the original mission. It might be a change of house type, change of Constantly putting in the drip feed of minor applications to deal with the beginning of the 3-year period and a recent application in my town for 300 new homes, I think that we for 300 new homes, I think that we have now have had five with drip- drip applications and that has the start forward by well over two years.

That is one way that the permissions are gained, if you like. The other one, as we know, from the competition and market, some major housebuilders can work together to ensure that the award is not a market in house thing in a particular area and they paid a paltry fine for doing so. And so, amendment 219, and before I go on to that, I would like to point out that one of the advantages to delaying housebuilding, having got permission, as they can use up the allocation in the local plan to the extent that a local authority no longer has what is required, a 5- year supply of housing sites and by getting permission and not building, housing developers can move on to greenfield sites in order to, because there is no five year supply, and use them first because they are more profitable and easier to build and it will leave the other sites waiting for even longer.

And so there is gameplaying by the housing developers on this issue and this is why amendment 219, in order to provide some leverage to local authorities and to get houses built, which is also the policy of this government and the last one, and so if there are levers to make sure this is the housing commission for more than 100 units, medium sites and beyond, that will help us to get houses built instead of having 1.2 million homes with permission failed to be built.

to be built.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lady said, with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lady said, with amendment 219, this introduces a new amendment 219, this introduces a new clause and where there is permission for development of 100 homes or for development of 100 homes or more, if it is not used, it is use it or lose it and there is a
20:05
20:06
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
purchase and I speak briefly in support of amendment 217 introduced by Lord Cromwell. This amendment seeks to assure requiring authorities and those acting on their behalf adhere to the same principles that apply in a transaction between a willing buyer and seller and it is a sensible and pragmatic proposal and, by its nature, compulsory purchase is an intrusive power should be exercised with transparency and fairness and ensure we align with an open market transaction and this will help to build trust and minimise disputes between landowners and authorities.

This must not be through the process, as Lord Cromwell describes. I note that this amendment introduces a new clause that would make subject to automatic consideration for compulsory purchase under the Housing Act 1985 we are this is not acted upon in the period and the Baroness touches on a widely debated issue which is the widely debated issue which is the problem of land banking, if I might do that. Her amendment raises the question of how we might create stronger incentives to build permission in a timely manner, particularly where housing need is acute.

Before considering supporting the amendment we must understand this practice. The figure of 1.2 million homes is bandied around but how many of these developments are not viable due to the diversity net gain costs could. How many costs are in the details of negotiating consent and how many are stalled due to other issues outside the control of the developer or land owner. I'm not convinced it is as wide an issue as the Baroness contends.

I thank her for any information she can share. House owners are businesses and they must have a build program that ensures they can do that and develop profits for shareholders and that often means pension funds and other institutional investors and the principal of making profit is important. Where a development has short-term supply ready to build on the balance sheet, in most cases, its markets with a certain number of units each year without undermining prices and housebuilders have a return of 15% on capital employment commitment and that if they are holding land of the market, they must be confident they are making more than 15% per annum doing that and the financial incentives are not clear and I would be interested to hear if the Minister can identify what land banking is taking place, where developers or landowners are holding onto land which could be built on right now without affecting local housing prices and I look forward to the Minister's reply.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Lord Cameron and Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Lord Cameron and Lord Cromwell and Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Bennett for their Baroness Bennett for their participation in the debate. It's participation in the debate. It's been an interesting debate. Turning to amendment 217, this would place a requirement on the Secretary of requirement on the Secretary of State to publish within six months of royal assent, a new statutory code of practice for all authorities when exercising compulsory purchase when exercising compulsory purchase powers from planning and development practice and this would enforceable by a mechanism set out in by a mechanism set out in regulations required to be published by the government and there would be by the government and there would be penalties for non-compliance.

It can lead to periods of uncertainty for lead to periods of uncertainty for those involved whether that is prior those involved whether that is prior to the making of a CPO. However, the government considers the proposed code of practice to be unnecessary and the government guidance was last updated in January and states the planning authority should undertake early engagement with landowners to identify what measures can be taken to mitigate the impact of the schemes, and where this is not done, CPO is our at risk of failing.

The confirming authorities should be sure that the purposes for which they are made do not interfere with those with the land affected and as we have discussed, particular consideration should be made to the provisions of article 1 of the first protocol to the European Commission on Human Rights and, in addition, the authorities should consider the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act and making a CPO and look at the needs of that and the public safety executive has also stated employers should protect the needs of their staff and protect those that they do business with or otherwise impact such as landowners and the principle applies to local authorities and CPOs.

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has published professional standards expected of members involved in the compulsory purchase compensation and the standards lay out ethical conduct expected for members. I
20:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
would like, and a couple of the would like, and a couple of the points made by Lord Cromwell, firstly, he raised issues and firstly, he raised issues and examples of things that can go wrong. In terms of the course, if it is a local authority that is the is a local authority that is the requiring agency, they can appeal to the monitoring officer and the monitoring officer and landowners can challenge a CPO and refer them to a tribunal and I agree on that point and I agree on the on that point and I agree on the composition because the person who is entitled to the purchase me request advance payment of compensation and of the advance payment is requested, they are payment is requested, they are obliged to make the payment once they have begun implementing the CPO they have begun implementing the CPO and 90% of the estimate of the total and 90% of the estimate of the total compensation payable.

I call that is compensation payable. I call that is some reassurance. This would add duplication and complexity to the process, which is contrary to government object lives and making the process more efficient to delivering more quickly. Amendment 219 six to ensure automatic compelling public interest case where permission has not begun with an applicable period. -- seeks. I would like to reassure the House, as I have deviously stated, that I fully agree with the object of improving the rate of residential develop that the government is committed to making sure planning permissions are translated into homes and developers must do all that they can to deliver but, however, I believe the amendment would be disproportionate and might have a chilling effect on development as developers and landowners might not make the applications and risk losing land if it's not implemented for any reason and, instead, as I set out earlier this week, in May, we published an important working paper on speeding up the build which sets out an important and apprehensive approach, including better transparency, buildout rates, new powers for local authorities to decline and determine applications from developers with bills fully and stronger emphasis on mixed I can use 10 years and -- mixed-use 10 -- tenures and it would be useful to have a little box and I want to point out that we want to make it easier for local authorities to acquire land with CPOs which would make it easier in the public interest.

We are analysing the responses to the working paper and will set out our next steps in due course. However, I want to emphasise that these measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the buildout of the housing development we want to see and I would therefore kindly ask the noble Lords to withdraw their noble Lords to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to Baroness Pinnock and others for their support for the amendment I put down and of
20:16
20:17
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

after clause 106, Baroness Hodgson. I rise to speak the amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak the amendment to hundred and 21 and 223. Before I do so I should remind the House of the so I should remind the House of the interest allocated at second reading that I have been the recipient of three party notices in the last three years which has brought this whole issue to my, about the practicality of the party wall act to my attention. These amendments deal with the issue of party walls and an issue that is specifically president in London and other cities were residential buildings either our joint or close to other housing.

Amendment 221 calls for a review but I would like to deal with amendment 223 first. This amendment is applicable mainly to residential buildings and stops any developer interfering with the structural integrity of somebody else's house without their permission. Simply means that no one should have their foundations affected by the work next door. The often used quotes as an Englishman's man is his castle comes to mind. Fiona home assume we should be able to live in it without interference.

I'm not human rights experts and I know that there are many noble and learned Lords in this House who are so I tiptoe into this issue with nervousness. But it is my understanding that under human rights law it protects against interference with property and is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights which under article 1 protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and that Article 80 protects your right to respect for your home.

Someone else interfering with the foundations of your House causes stress and anxiety to the owner because it has the ability to undermine and/or badly damage the property. In fact there have been cases of houses becoming unstable and in some cases actually collapsing. I also understand that at least one facility has been caused. This is not -- one fatality. This is the first time this has been raised. There was a built in 2015 to address this very issue because most of the interference with other people's foundations comes about because of basements being dark or floors lowered.

Having personally been on the receiving end of this I can attest to the huge distress, noise and interference that this causes and to which I and many others have been subjected. So it is time to stop. Others in the future having to be affected in this way. The development should not interfere physically with anyone else's property without their permission. This brings me to amendment 221 which calls for a review of the party wall act. This was brought in as a private spill in 1996 by the noble Lord The Earl of Lytton and I understand was meant to address circumstances where damage had occurred and deal with this meant that the neighbouring house would also be affected.

Understand this was brought in with good intentions. However, it was in the days before the fashion for digging basements. The provisions in this bill are very one-sided and basically take away the rights from the adjoining owner so that damage, sometimes criminal damage, trespass and nuisance may occur. Moreover the party wall act appears to take this work out of planning so there is no mechanism to allow an adjoining owner to object. It robs the adjoining owner of any rights to try and stop the work, even where it may adversely affect the property.

This unfairness is exacerbated by the way surveyors have interpreted this act, as although the adjoining owner is allowed to appoint a surveyor, unlike most professionals representing a client, the surveyor chooses to act initially, often refusing the owner any input or say about what happens to the property while the surveyor to those doing the development is briefed by their client on what to do. It's almost 30 years since this bill was passed. There has not been any post- legislative scrutiny and there has been no review.

I tabled a number of questions on this issue in October last year asking if the government would conduct a review. July 2021 Newcastle University architecture and planning landscape bunkering down report cited that 7328 basements have been improved in 32 London boroughs between 2008 and 2019, saying they have now become as normal as loft conversion. The department has five zone admission received correspondence from parliamentarians and members of the public concerning the efficacy and application of the act and any review or consultation needs to include this correspondence in the evidence.

I would very much like to thank noble Baroness the Minister who found time to see me about this. One of the advantages of living in a democracy that he rights. People democracy that he rights. People need to be reassured their home is safe and that all things are in line with the ECHR. I do hope the Minister, if the Minister doesn't feel she can accept this amendment itself, she will commit to a consultation and review forthwith. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 106, insert the clause as printed in
20:23
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her noble friend Baroness Hodgson four tabling amendments to Hodgson four tabling amendments to hundred 21 and 223 regarding the party Wall act which is an important party Wall act which is an important piece of legislation providing legal framework to resolve disputes between property owners, concerning between property owners, concerning schedules. Amendment to G1 would schedules. Amendment to G1 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the party Wall act and clarify whether it is consistent with current planning and development practices and whether it development practices and whether it needs amending to date its position in planning and development processes.

We should all recognise processes. We should all recognise the importance in amending previous legislation so that it is consistent with current law and practice and with current law and practice and therefore a hope the government takes this amendment seriously. takes this amendment seriously. Amendment 22 316 short at the structural integrity of homes is structural integrity of homes is protected by requiring the protected by requiring the neighbouring property owners who may be affected. It aims to uphold be affected.

It aims to uphold people's existing property rights and their structural integrity. This is an important principle which I is an important principle which I look forward to the government addressing and the noble Baroness the Minister's response.
20:25
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson for her amendments relating to party walls and thank her for meeting with me to help you understand the issues that she has raised relating to this. Turning to amendment 221, the 6 to create a legal duty to review the party wall act 1996, within 12 months of the bill becoming law. The act provides a framework for preventing or resolving disputes between neighbours relating to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near buildings.

While I have no objection in principle to reviewing legislation it has been the view of success governments as the 90s that the party wall act does deliver what it was intended to do. It creates a framework for communication agreement between adjoining property owners when work needs to be carried out to a shared structure while the building relations establish the minimum legal standards for the functional requirements in new building work. The party wall act already requires the owner of the building carrying out work under the party wall act must serve any adjoining property owner a party structure notice stating the name and address of the building owner posing the work, the nature and particulars of the proposed work including in cases where the building owner reposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction, of the special foundations, together with reasonable particulars of the lows to be carried thereby and the date on which the proposed work will begin.

Turning to amendment to 23 which seeks to create a legal duty for building owners to gain permission from the adjoining property to carry out any works under the party wall act, as I mentioned the party wall act provides a framework preventing and resolving disputes, when they occur in relation to party walls and to make sure that those from the impact building works that all those holding building works are accountable for any impact, ensuring structural compliance when undertaking the work is already collated under the building relation structure, approved document A and any development work comply with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations.

Amending the party wall act will therefore have no military effect on the structural safety of buildings beyond what is already migrated for. The party wall act should therefore continue to provide a cost framework -- robust framework, in relation to party walls, party structures and excavations near neighbouring buildings forced on except that there are occasions when things go wrong and I'm happy to continue the dialogue the noble Lady but for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons I have set out, I would ask her to withdraw her amendments. And I thank noble Baroness the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank noble Baroness the Minister for her response. I'm always mystified by the terms that always mystified by the terms that this act provides a robust framework for absolving disputes. As somebody for absolving disputes. As somebody who has had party wall notices
20:28
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
served on me, I don't see any mechanism for resolving disputes except that the developer can actually just do the work and there is no mechanism for the adjoining owner to actually object a stop work. I don't think it actually does resolve disputes. I hear what she says about structural compliance. Often people carrying out the development get a building inspector from outside the council, and there is no requirement for them to speak to the adjoining owner even when they request to ask whether the work has been carried out correctly, because they say that there not their client, it's the developer who is the client.

I would query some of those statements. And I very much hope that they can be a review of this act and I would be delighted to continue the conversation with the Minister and on those grounds I withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your lordships' pleasure amendment be withdrawn. It is by amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 223. Not leave withdrawn. Amendment 223. Not moved. Amendment 224, not move. 2 to moved. Amendment 224, not move. 2 to 5, Baroness Freeman, not moved. 5, Baroness Freeman, not moved. Amendment to G6, not moved. 227, A, not moved. B, not moved. We come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 227, C. I rise to speak to amendment 227,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 227, C in my name. It would insert a new clause after clause 106 creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchased land on leased land purchased land on leased land roundabout. As the expansion notes highlights, this is to ensure that any landowner is aware of whether it any landowner is aware of whether it is just their land matters being subject to the purchase or leasing subject to the purchase or leasing or whether those making the approach are also reaching out to other owners of land in the vicinity for owners of land in the vicinity for the purpose of the development.

Subsection 2 that the above statement must include if it is the combined amount of land that will be submitted for application is nationally object. Meanwhile subsection 3 provides definition of what is met in this case by in the vicinity in this context, namely anything from adjoining court within 10 miles of land intended to be used 10 miles of land intended to be used or purchased. Why am I so concerned to address this issue? What simply because the problem can arise when developers in a somewhat sneaky underhand albeit not a legal way have taken advantage of the complexity and siloed nature of the planning system to not be open about the intention for a large Anecdotally, I have heard of one situation where landowners thought they were signing in isolation, unaware others in the vicinity had been asked to do the same.

And when this came to light, and the compounding of the land made into a large infrastructure project, the public outcry was enormous and apparently there was a backlash against these landowners. We should not forget that often, the proposed installations will be in place for 60 years, 60 years on agricultural land. And where companies are involved, we have no idea often who they are. My Lords, this amendment would not prevent land purchasing, but would force better practices, bringing in increased transparency and accountability to the progress, for such giant projects.

It's only right and fair that landowners and the local communities potentially impacted have some sense of the scale of a project being proposed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and how it might have a much bigger impact beyond their boundaries. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 106, insert the following new clause
20:32
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
as printed in the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 227, E, tabled in my name amongst others. This amendment would address the wide reaching consequences of a wide reaching consequences of a recent Supreme Court decision for recent Supreme Court decision for persons that require open space land persons that require open space land for authorities. The context for this is that open space is held by a local authority and the public local authority and the public health act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 subject to a statutory Act 1906 subject to a statutory trust, in favour of the public, given the right to go onto the land given the right to go onto the land for the purpose of recreation.

When a local authority wants to sell open space land, particularly because it is either surplus to requirements or is either surplus to requirements or part of a land swap to visit a new higher quality open space elsewhere, its decision-making process is its decision-making process is subject to various procedural and substantive safeguards, both under statute and common law. Where the statute and common law. Where the procedural requirements, section 123 procedural requirements, section 123 1232A of the act of 1952, provides the authority may not dispose of any land, forming part of an open space, and S before doing so, they advertise their intention to do so, advertise their intention to do so, in the local newspaper for two weeks, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal, received in response to the advertisement.

Under section 1232B of the same act, the sale of the land, post advertisement, then proceeds three a statutory trust. If the local resident community group considers any of the procedural sensitive -- Substantive requirements are breached, they have a remedy, they can bring a review of the local authority's decision. In public law, the normal position is that if a public bodies position is not challenged within the three-month time limit for a judicial review claim, that decision is treated as having all the effects in law of a valid decision.

However, in day, the Supreme Court held that even when the decision to dispose of open space land had not been challenged at the time of disposal, and maybe many years, even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertisement requirements, means the statutory trust persists. This rating the purchasing or development of the land in question. And that is the case the court reasoned, even if the land was sold to a born fighter purchaser, he was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity.

And even if it remains no dispute the land was surplus to requirements. My Lords, the effect of this is deeply unsatisfactory. It means the land which has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision, that it is in the public interest to dispose of it, which may have planning permission for beneficial redevelopment, is now bound by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial reuse. It sits uncomfortable with the public law principle that all challenge public decisions should be treated as valid and with the property law principle that the bona fides purchase so, without notice of equitable interests, takes land when encumbered by those interests.

This is causing huge uncertainty in relation to land purchased many years ago, sometimes decades, as I mentioned. The evidence about whether or not the land in question had been advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available. And this is holding up many developments across the country which already have planning permission. A high-profile example of that is the current proposal to expand the all England lawn tennis club is, internationally renowned facilities, at Wimbledon, onto adjacent former golf club sites. The planning permission for which was recently upheld by the High Court.

Claims to the subject was subject to the statutory trust, in light of the judgement, holding of the development, and with it, this of central benefits to UK plc that it will deliver. Amendment 227, E, would deal with this issue, providing the purchaser of former open place land at their successors in title are free from the burden of a statutory trust. This would not remove the local authority was my duty to advertise before disposing of open space land, nor would it remove any other legal safeguards in the decision-making process, relating to such disposal.

It wouldn't interfere with the public right to challenge decision, to dispose of such land within the usual three month window for a GR claim. What it would do, however, is to ensure where there has been no such challenge and the transaction was made in good faith that the purchase is not subject to the uncertainty and burdens I have outlined. This would be consistent with the government's stated desire to streamline the planning system and to deliver the growth of this country needs and I respectfully urge the noble Lady, the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give it serious thought. My Lords, support the noble Lord,
20:37
Lord Grabiner Portrait Lord Grabiner (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and I have added my name to his amendment. Every so name to his amendment. Every so often, we get a court decision which produces an unsatisfactory outcome. If as is the position in relation to this amendment, it is a decision of the Supreme Court. There is no further appeal process. In that event, it is possible to have recourse to Parliament for the resulting problem to be put right. My Lords, this is such a case.

Quite often, because of the demands made on parliamentary time, it is not practical to get a speedy solution. Fortunately, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in progress. And is, I believe, tailor-made for the resolution of this problem. The mischief addressed by the amendment was, as you would expect, identified by Lady Rose, delivering the unanimous judgement of the five judge Supreme Court, in the case of Shropshire Council that we are concerned with. In paragraph 116, at the end of her judgement, lady Rose said, " I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation." My Lords, this is one of those situations where Parliament can and should step in to perform some corrective surgery.

I will not weary your lordships with a detailed analysis of some arcane trust law, or a lengthy exegesis of section 164 of the Public Health Act of 1875, sections 123 and 128 of the Local Government Act 1972, a provisions of the open spaces act 1906. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, has already done that. I don't mean he has board your lordships, I mean he has accurately, if I may respectfully say so, summarise the import of that mixture of ancient legislation.

Where a local authority is proposing to expose of land, it is technically obliged to advertise that fact for two successive weeks in the relevant local press. That is by virtue of section 123 of the 1972 act. This enables residents to register their objections. In advance of the disposition. It is a consultation disposition. It is a consultation process. I describe the advertising requirement as technical, because the 1972 act specifically provides that any failure to advertise, for example by mistake or oversight, will not impede or undermine the transaction.

The buyer is fully protected and gets titled to the land purchased. That's section 128, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, made reference. Now, that provision says that the sale is not invalid for want of advertising. And that the purchaser, " Shall not be concerned to seek or enquire" With the advertising requirement has been advertising requirement has been satisfied. Careful and complex historical investigations conducted by a potential purchaser may reveal that Fernando subject to a public or statutory trust under the 1875 act.

Entitling the public to go into the Entitling the public to go into the land for recreational purposes. The day case is far-reaching, it is accepted the purchaser get a good title. But the failure to advertise means the public right to use the land remains in place. Moreover, that will continue to be the case forever because only the local authority has the power or duty to advertise under the 1972 act. So, it has a most profound and permanent effect.

Your lordships will immediately appreciate the devastating impact of the decision. The land is blighted. The potential purchaser, for example a developer, will walk away. Either because he doesn't know if the parcel of land for historical reasons is caught by the 1875 act, or if he discovers it is caught, he could do nothing about it, and his development plans would be frustrated. At a time when it is in the public interest to encourage housebuilding, it is important that unjustifiable impediments should not be allowed to undermine the furtherance of that crucial objective.

One can see that an objection to the amendment might be made along the lines that the public right to enjoy the land would be taken away. That is true. But there are two important countervailing arguments that point. First, there is an important public interest in doing whatever we can about the chronic housing shortage. Secondly, it is obvious that in the 1972 act, Parliament was giving local authorities the power to sell the land and thereby to ensure the public recreation rights would fall away forever.

The decision in day makes it plain, that if the advertising requirements have been satisfied, the public right would, indeed, have disappeared. When you take account of the fact the purchaser gets a good title in any event the intention of Parliament in 1972 is clear. That act was designed to facilitate or ease the transfer of land. The decision has produced an un-contemplated hurdle which can come and I would respectfully suggest should, be set aside. I hope your lordships and the government in particular will agree with this analysis and will agree to the amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have also added my name to Lord Banner's amendment. As the noble Banner's amendment. As the noble Lord has just mentioned, the Supreme Court concluded its judgement by Court concluded its judgement by recognising that it would leave a " Rather messy situation." This amendment gives Parliament the amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to clear up this mess. The mischief, which Lord Banner explained, is impeding many developments up and down the developments up and down the country.

Not least the plans of the
20:45
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
country. Not least the plans of the all England tennis club to expand its facilities at Wimbledon. A much-needed development that will enable the club the better to perform its important functions of national and indeed international importance. It is a great pleasure to follow Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner in relation to this development, they are a formidable doubles team. Can I just add a few points to what they have said. The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that if the local authority does comply with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, then the purchaser does take free from the trust.

Section 123 of the Local Government Act. And paragraph 102 of the Supreme Court judgement. So there is no question of the trust The second point I want to emphasise that if the local authority fails properly to advertise the sale, any interested person is entitled to challenge the sale within the three month time limit that applies in the planning context. So the question we are debating is whether the purchase should be bound by the trust years later because of the failure of the local authority to advertise when no one has brought a legal challenge within the applicable time limits and indeed when the land has been bought by a bona fides purchaser.

The third point, Lord Banner has dealt with this, I can be very brief, is that the current state of the law is pronounced by the Supreme Court, which overall the Court of Appeal in the High Court on this issue, is very damaging to development, is very damaging to growth of the economy, which of course is one of the primary objectives of this government. The current position is that developers who purchased land from local authorities now need to enquire into whether the land was subject to a trust and if so, whether local authority properly complied with its duty to advertise.

These can be highly complex matters which take a great deal of time and money to unravel, even assuming, which is often not the case, that adequate local authorities exist. If there was a trust and if there was inadequate advertising, the purchaser is simply left with land which it cannot develop. And in the light of the recent Supreme Court judgement, the problems even more troubling in the land has already been developed and perhaps sold on. And the reality which the government needs to understand, if I may respectfully say so, is that the judgement of the Supreme Court in day is being used around the country by those opposed to development as a means to delay investment in much- needed infrastructure and they are doing so irrespective of the fact, as with the Wimbledon develop that planning permission has been granted -- Wimbledon development.

Wimbledon is one of many examples, it's a high-profile example, of the problem concerned. The Wimbledon development has already taken five years, as understand, Wimbledon plans were granted planning permission and that was upheld by the High Court after an unsuccessful judicial review challenge. The Supreme Court decision has to cause further delay and uncertainty -- has caused. The all England club disputes that the land in question was ever subject to a public trust, before the Supreme Court judgement that was an academic issue as the club as purchaser would have taken the land free from any trust under that provision of the Local Government Act.

Now, the locality of the development depends on complex expensive research into whether there was a trust and if so, whether local authority complied with its obligations to return. At best, that will further delay a much-needed development. So I do hope that the Minister can tell asked today that the government wants to find a solution to this problem. No doubt, if Lord Banner will forgive me, the wording of the amendment to 27, E, might be improved but I'm sure that noble Lords banner and grappler and other interested noble Lords would be very happy with me to meet with the Minister prior to report stage to discuss ways forward.

And it may be helpful to include in that meeting as representatives of the All- England club who can assist in the practicalities. This is a problem bill.
20:51
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to address amendments to hundred 27, C, E, and the name of my noble friends. I thank both my noble friends for bringing these thoughtful and important proposals to the attention of the committee. Amendment 227, C, 6 to ensure greater transparency for landowners when they are approached for the sale or release of land, specifically it would require landowner is informed whether the land is being poached in isolation or as part of a wider acquisition, while they may ultimately support an application for an NSIP.

This strikes me as a considered and sensible safeguard and landownership should be able to make fully formed decisions particularly where the incubation could lead to significant legal and planning implications under NSIP regime. Transparency in the early stages of negotiation and avoid unnecessary disputes or confusion further down the line. Returning to amendment 227, E, this response to the recent Supreme Court judgement in Shropshire. The amendment seeks to clarify and reinforce protections available to purchasers acquiring land from local authorities under the Local Government Act.

I can be reasonably brief because it was well set out. Given the uncertainty created by the judgement, it's entirely approach that we consider how best to provide reassurance to bona fides purchases acting in good faith. Legal certainty in these transactions is vital, not just for the public sector but for developers and communities who rely on these deals. My noble friend Lord Banner made a strong case that 27, E, would deal with the issue that... Are free from the burden of a statutory trust.

And of course he also had the strong support of the noble and learned Lord Lord Grocott and Lord panic and I think that noble Lords Lord Grabiner made the very good point that this is the only veto in due site in order to change it and I hope the noble Lady that Minister will address that point, as the government willing to use a small amendment in the bill to address a problem which I think the noble Lord Lord Pannick said was a mess.

I have been in this House a few years and I don't give any votes it was interesting to hear that some noble and learned QCs have discovered the Supreme Court sometimes make it Supreme Court sometimes make it things slightly wrong. These are very thoughtful amendments and I thank my noble friends for raising them and I look forward to hearing the noble Lady the Minister's reflections on these points and physically on the points raised by my noble friend and what the government plans to do to sort out the mess that the noble Lord has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

described. Before the Minister replies may I intervene, not having spoken intervene, not having spoken previously, just to say there are previously, just to say there are always two sides to any argument and there are clearly two sides to the argument for the Supreme Court, the other side being doctored a's other side being doctored a's argument, that those people who have argument, that those people who have the benefit of open space should be consulted about the loss of that. I consulted about the loss of that.

I agree that the intention of the 1972 of legislation was that local authorities could dispose of that land and that they would be able to land and that they would be able to do so notwithstanding the previous 1906 public open spaces act. But the point that Doctor Day asserted point that Doctor Day asserted successfully for the Supreme Court is that those people who benefit from access to open spaces should from access to open spaces should have been consulted and I think the opportunity should be taken just to establish the Tony do we need to establish the Tony do we need to change the law but we need to examine how and under what circumstances local authorities who circumstances local authorities who wish to dispose of land to which the public have access should consult those people who will be affected.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

those people who will be affected. In answer to Lord Blencathra's excellent speech, it wasn't Lord Grabiner and myself who described the situation as a mess, those were the words of Lady Rose in the Supreme Court herself. I wouldn't presume to suggest the Supreme Court judgement was a mess. While on my feet, and grateful for the opportunity, to mention one other matter, it is that my noble friend matter, it is that my noble friend Lord O'Donnell is here but wasn't here at the beginning of the debate.

here at the beginning of the debate. He very much, cosmic, support the amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting if the included in any meeting if the Minister would grant one. Lord O'Donnell is a main committee member O'Donnell is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club and very strongly support this amendment but obviously can't speak because he obviously can't speak because he wasn't here briefing the debate. wasn't here briefing the debate.
20:56
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
I would like to thank noble Baroness Lady Hodgson and the noble Lord will banner for the amendments related to land purchasing and unable Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick who have contributed to the debate. Amendment 227, eight, 16 judgement approaching landowners to buy or lease their land in connection with the proposed development developers declare their interest in purchasing adjacent land and confirming whether purchasing the land is being done in connection with a nationalist infrastructure project by the planning out 2008.

While I appreciate the intent this amendment to increase transparency and discourage speculative land banking which not of us want to see a must respect the argue is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of this bill. Purchasing land in relation to development, particularly those which relate to nationally significant projects can be sensitive in nature and thus require confidential discussions between parties, in order to ensure the most appropriate and proportionate outcome is achieved for all. Requiring developers to disclose whether they are in talks of other landowners could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, dies in progress on the development projects.

Furthermore within the planning 2008 guidance related to procedures, with the compulsory acquisition of land, government has guidance purchasing land is required in connection with Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. This encourages developers to enter into early discussions with people who can be affected by land acquisition as a result of an NCIP. The government stands by this and 60 girl -- build on these intervals without complicating procedures with additional burdens on developers. Where land has been purchased in connection with NCIP we require a book of reference which is submitted
20:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
with the application for development consent. This is a crucial document which is available for the public to view once an application has been view once an application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State and outlines all land and interest of the land land and interest of the land associated with the application. This includes land and interests in land which may be affected by the land which may be affected by the development including through compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or interests being possession or interests being suspended or extinguished.

This document provides a clear and transparent account of all land transparent account of all land interests in their proposed to be affected by an NCIP. With that I thank noble Baroness for helpful postal, however in light of the sensitivities noted the guidance published in the existing published in the existing requirements of the planning, we do not consider this amendment is not consider this amendment is necessary. Turning to amendment 227, necessary. Turning to amendment 227, E, I'm very grateful to the noble E, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Banner for raising the important manner rated to the important manner rated to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is reserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following strategies procedures.

Government agrees with the intent. Open green spaces and public parks are an essential part of local social infrastructure stop one of the main reasons why people feel proud of their local area provide places for social connection support health and well-being, increase community engagement for volunteering and help people connect with nature and they can be a strong foundation for capital. We acknowledge not all open spaces continue to serve their original recreational purpose. Fact, when they become neglected, they can see to be an asset and become a burden for local authorities and communities.

That's why there's a long established procedure under section 123 of the Local Government Act to allow for the disposal of land held in trust. If the procedure is followed land can be disposed of free from the trust provisions stop local authorities must advertise intention to propose of the land for two weeks in a local newspaper They can already protect themselves from land they can develop because of a statutory trust by considering whether legal advisers were the correct procedures have been followed raising appropriate precontract inquiries of the local authority prior to acquisition.

We recognise that in some cases, development on these spaces as preventative local authorities do not follow the procedure set out in section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Leaving developers in legal uncertainty, notwithstanding they have purchased the land, as the Shropshire Council court case has shown. However, it will not solve this effectively ended. Failed to have the intended effect. It would also have retrospective effect. We must accelerate development. It's critical that local authorities critical that local authorities consult communities on the disposal of open land.

I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, held in trust for the public enjoyment to preserve the integrity of procedures that protect public spaces. The government believes this issue needs to be given a wider consideration, to identify a balanced solution that takes into account legal safeguards and addresses the practical challenges faced by developers. It will also require engagement with the sector, the noble Lord will be very welcome to join, as will other noble Lords who have indicated their interest in this issue.

I look forward to further engagement. I think we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

probably sort out the mess working together, but for the moment, for the reasons... I am grateful to the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lady. She is suggesting the government are changing on this, can she give us changing on this, can she give us any indication of the timescale where we might see legislation. An amendment or some primary act of Parliament. Can she give us any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament. Can she give us any indication of the timescale please? Lord Blencathra, I would be very loath to do that because when you start looking into something, particularly legal matters, it is always more complex than you anticipate it would be. So, in order to help make this make sense, I hope to help make this make sense, I hope we will be able to bring our combined forces together and get some resolution to the issue. But some resolution to the issue.

But for the reasons I set out, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remembrance. -- Their amendments. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister for her
21:03
21:04
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendment 227, H, and that ROZ ROSENBLATT:$$JOIN s H, and that ROZ ROSENBLATT:$$JOIN s 57 side as part of this bill. Another amendment, namely 334, 346 DD and three 468 in my name, that provide a simple and cost-effective way of addressing the issues of part three of this bill professes a sympathise -- Professes to simplify. I thank the noble Lord Earl Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Young for the support. This is a broad church in our reasons and solutions are likely to differ and I look forward to their contributions.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, the setting to help her colleagues with her deep deaf expertise and also making time the other day to meet before this committee stage. I have asked for these amendments to be grouped in this way to allow a debate on the limitations of part three, and better ways of addressing the challenges that part three is seeking to tackle. I will endeavour not to repeat arguments I have made previously, but an argument that runs through all of this group and how we should debate together in this way.

When I rose at second reading, I expressed deep scepticism about the approach to be taken to planning processes, in part three of this bill. I quoted environmental NGOs, lobbying groups, and even development bodies that were united in their opposition, or concerned about part three of this bill. I most grateful to the government for their amendments to strengthen environmental protections of this part. However, I am concerned they are missing the point. The purpose of my amendments at this stage is to prove the necessity of such changes in the protection of the planning process.

I would very much like to have a comprehensive answer from the noble Baroness, the Minister, what exactly is wrong with the environmental protections currently, that cannot be addressed by tweaks to our current regime. I do not wish to open a complete second reading speech with everything that is wrong with part three and why. I would simply highlight the effects of part three is to create another process for dealing with environmental issues. Alongside existing processes. That will lead to confusion and muddle. The body tasked to implement this is widely believed not to have the resources to do so effectively in a timely manner.

And in fact, often seems to be part of the problem. The existing protections to the environments through the planning process, such as the mitigation hierarchy, and the use of private markets for biodiversity again are functioning well and improving every day. The implementation of EDPs, environmental delivery plans, is likely to ride roughshod over the interests of farmers and land managers, be more costly than the current system, deliver uncertain outcomes and remove localism. We know that up to 160,000 households are being blocked by Natural England advice on neutrality.

This House shows to defeat our amendments on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that would have removed this blockage. These regulations are not designed for or well-suited to our country. And the sooner we make them fit for purpose, the better. Amendment 346, DD, and 346, DE, are a real formation of that. This means that those 160,000 houses could be unblocked by the Secretary of State for the commencement of this bill, faster than any EDP can deliver, simple and free. Amendment 334 requires the JNCC to review the habitat regulations under the wildlife and countryside act 1981.

And publish a report on consolidating them. This would be with a view to the government bringing forward legislation to replace them with domestic legislation that is fit for purpose and this country. This need not be a lengthy process and is a medium-term solution to the issues we have been left with. In our planning system, from adopting one size fits all EU regulations. I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether the dynamic alignments being followed by her governments with Europe, appears to have been adopted, would pose problems to us legislating how we protect our own environment.

We know that what appears to be poor decisions have been taken on a number of occasions. Million pounds for HS2, the protection of the site as a SSSI, as we did dig into these issues, we found it wasn't the system itself. It was debated in the earlier group, that would remove protections for that species that do not need them in our country. Had that been in effect, it would mention about tunnel under HS2. As well as reducing the cost and increasing the speed of many, if not all, refurbishment and construction projects across our country.

I know by noble friend is taken on board the criticisms of Sam noble Lords and is working on a more nuanced amendment for report stage. I am not suggesting these amendments are the only solutions to the actual issues being experienced in protecting environment and planning. I know this will not necessarily win everyone's approval. I have also put my name to amendments 242, A, 185F and 185, G, which provide a constructive alternative approach that could offer a better solution also common in part three of this bill.

And those I know will be debated later in committee stage. Amendments 302 and 303 may not be fitted particularly well in this group, but makes it clear that under the auspices of EDPs, only direct actions of these EDPs, to address these features, allow those features to then be disregarded. I am very grateful again to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her supporting these amendments. My Lords, we are on our benches are trying to find constructive eternity of the part three.

These are, by the nature, probing amendments, and we are not simply finding to destroy pottery, but asking if more direct and simple action in the existing system is better. I hope I have made the case that the existing use of these and other amendments can revise current environmental protection, without weakening it. And immediately get Britain building rather than relying on yet another rather than relying on yet another team of government employees with an open-ended cheque-book. I very much look forward to other contributions to this debate, the noble Baroness, the Minister's response.

We are trying to unblock the planning system and complexity. I will need to be convinced that part three is necessary, not to bring similar amendments back to report. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 90, line
21:12
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, leave out delivery and insert 'harm mitigation'. As they noble Lord said, my noble friend, Baroness Jones, signed all friend, Baroness Jones, signed all of the clauses standing part as elements in this group, which are essentially able to delete part three of the bill. Unlike the noble Lord, we, in the green group, think that part three is not as bad as it was but we would still be better off without it. At that of course is the view of many of the NGOs and campaigning groups and the experts who have been in contact with me.

And indeed, the mailbag I have had, there is a bit of composition at the moment, was -- A bit of competition at the moment, but what is one of the issues we have encountered. The noble Baroness did major rawness in her second reading speech and asked what the government had it in for bats, newts and frogs. It did rather appear that some members were scared of these as a small child and had scars. And we see a backpedalling of the government's attitude to small mammals and amphibians.

Nonetheless, there are so grave concerns about there are so grave concerns about part three. We have already debated in a number of different groups, and it is a real pity we are getting to this so late and in such an incoherent manner, given the importance, in this hugely nature depleted country, of these issues covered by part three. But I'm not going to run through all of those amendments. But I do want to highlight the response of the Office For Environmental Protection which published in government amendments, which says " We are clear that even after the material amendments the government proposes, the bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protections on the face of the law.

My Lords, I am going to raise for big issues. And I am hoping we might hear some reassurance from the noble Lady, the Minister, that we have had some reassurance is perhaps in statements in government, but that is not the same as on the floor of the House. Those issues are first of all, the safeguarding of the mitigation hierarchy. That is ensuring the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy, including by seeking to avoid harm wherever possible, through our most important biodiversity assets.

We are still nowhere near where we need to be on that for some secondly, the overall improvement test. It must significantly and immeasurably outweigh the negative impacts. We are of course hearing the biodiversity game, but also talking about the conservation status of identified features, given the absence of European protected species legal tests. And also, of course, this is about environmental delivery plans. There needs to be an implementation schedule here, to provide the guarantees that the conservation measures will deliver the benefits.

Prior to the damage being done. Once valuable biodiversity is lost, it's gone, and promises to fix something up later I am afraid really doesn't crack it. And finally, and I think this is something I feel very passionate about. The irreplaceable habitats. I have stood at the feet of many hundred-year-old oak trees and thought about all the species, all the biodiversity that is dependent on those, there is no way of replacing that once it is lost. And we have lost so, so much that we cannot afford to lose more.

So, I am afraid the green position remains that we are nowhere near where we should be, we are still heading in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate. I have seen many noble Lords have stayed late with the intention of delivering a forceful message here. I am confident. I look forward to the noble Lady, the ministers, response.
21:16
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I speak briefly to the part three, stand apart as amendments in the name of Lord Roborough, which Baroness Jones and myself have also signed. It was unusual but I feel it was the right thing to do, that these amendments were brought forward. I believe they were brought forward to indicate the strength and political feeling on these matters political feeling on these matters I am pleased to have added my name to them. Equally I think it is right that they are now withdrawn at this stage in the bill.

I do want to pay my respect and thanked the government and in particular to Baroness Hayman and others who have worked and looked again at the concerns that have been raised about the possible impact of this bill as it was initially drafted, and those have been voiced very strongly by the general public, by the NGO community and by members of both houses of this Parliament. It's not often that such a package of government amendments are tabled without a vote but I must say it is a very welcome move.

If I'm honest, after the second reading of this bill personally I wasn't looking forward to the rest of the stages because I could see a showdown on basic nature protections coming down the line. So I am immensely grateful that this bill has been substantially amended and improved. However these amendments are not perfect as others have said. But they do offer some substantial improvements. I believe in the friendly hand of scrutiny and I'm convinced that government that listen and compromise make better laws than those that don't.

Fundamentally however I do still feel that this bill is still flawed and it carries a fundamental flaw through its heart in part three because it identifies the wrong problems. Then sets out to fix them in a not particularly great way. All the while I find their are multiple other blockages to the planning system that don't really get the solutions that they need to, and they need to be unlocked so that we can get the growth of the housing and transition to clean power and everything else that we really need.

I know the government has made concessions and wants this bill passed. My hope is that with shorter speeches from all that this government will continue to listen and we can continue the constructive dialogue with the time remaining to discuss the remaining important issues. In the interests of that time I will not run through the changes. On these benches we still have concerns about the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy. As representing a really significant shift in the approach, an approach that genuine -- generally has worked fairly well.

This change of approach carries with it significant bureaucratic burdens and inherent risk, it carries inherent risk for businesses who will be undertaking the staff and face reputational damage, and it creates an almost communist scale of new bureaucracy about moving nature as if it was Lego bricks from one place to another where I am deeply concerned about the irreplaceable habitats. Look, we all have opportunities to discuss these in the remaining sections of this bill, we are also concerned about mitigation hierarchy.

Fundamentally I still don't understand, I've looked at all of the updated energy policies, EN one, we looked at the updated policy one, we looked at the updated policy on nuclear power, on the grid, on renewables, the mitigation hierarchy in those policies remains at the heart of those policies. I don't understand why, that will continue to be the case after this bill has passed by -- why then mitigation hierarchy must be removed for housing full stop the government might want to make particular arguments about the mitigation hierarchy in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects, but for housing I don't see why we can deliver energy product with the mitigation hierarchy, whites housing needs to be removed.

Finally to close, just on the comments that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning has quoted in the Times, the other worry I have with this bill is, I deeply respect the Minister and everything that has been done here, my worry is there will be another board -- bill coming underlined that some aspects of this government still do perceive nature as a blockage to planning and development when the government's own impact assessment shows that that is not the case. I worry that commitments made here might be changed later on down the line.

I do want to thank the Minister, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's more to discuss but I'm very grateful. I think there are three reactions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think there are three reactions coming to the four about part three, coming to the four about part three, there is a bunch of folk who want to kill it because it's awful, and kill it because it's awful, and unnecessary. There's a bunch of folk unnecessary. There's a bunch of folk who are predisposed to accept it with the government amendments is not being very good but good enough and we can probably get more and we can probably get more amendments in the process of passing through this House.

The third position is finding an alternative way of really focusing and resolving all the issues that are actually stopping development happening, that's the way that I would espouse. that's the way that I would espouse. Originally I had my name down to Originally I had my name down to Lord Roborough's mighty list of clauses and parts which would have completely kneecapped part three and I do thank him for making this opportunity to discuss what the opportunity to discuss what the problems are basically with part three, that arouse such strong antipathy right across the piece.

Regardless of which of the three reactions you espouse. I took my name down from the clause stand part amendments when I put down my own amendments of 185F and 185G and 284 a which I presented with a heavy heart to a small but dedicated band who were still here since it was the final amendment of Thursday night's session. I've never experienced a death slot quite like that one before it felt like a wet Tuesday night at Aberdeen Empire.

I actually believe that EDPs are not very good way forward, they are a very risky way forward for a number of reasons. One is that they are probably unnecessary because they are too
21:23
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
sweeping and regarding EDPs as needing to cover a whole platform of issues which actually have already issues which actually have already been resolved or are not in the eyes of developers really the problem of developers really the problem getting the way. I also think they are risky in that the habitats regulations have stood us in good stead over many years, we invented them as a bunch of bricks, they them as a bunch of bricks, they represent the highest level of protection for that tiny tiny most important set of sites and species.

Developers have got used to them over 30 years of applying them, they've developed an understanding and they've developed expertise within their operations and many developers admit that the have -- habitation regulations are quite along that way down the list along that way down the list blockages. I have big concerns, it's a pity that Lord Krebs and Baroness Willis are not in this place today Willis are not in this place today -- tonight because they've developed a wonderful roadmap that shows how a wonderful roadmap that shows how EDPs simply add another route to getting permissions rather than simplifying the existing routes.

My simplifying the existing routes. My amendments I hope take the constructive avenue of trying to find a middle way through by restricting them to those issues for which they can be effective which are strategic and landscape level issues of nutrient recharge of water quality and air quality. And adding to that amendments which I combine with them to give the heavy lifting of the habitats regulations assessment for the regional spatial strategies and local plans that by the time a developer comes to put forward a planning application not only have the majority of surveys assessment taken place is also they would be clear the developers would be clear where they should avoid sites with tricky protected sites and species and instead aim for those sites with rather less likely wrangles at stake.

These already debated amendments have had a second opportunity to find their way to the light that is slightly more auspicious point in the timetable. I do hope ministers will consider them, they would be less dramatic than Lord Roborough's clause stand than Lord Roborough's clause stand part massacre. I should say that I don't wholly support Lord Roborough solution for the issue, mainly because I don't actually understand what his amendments are intended to achieve that I should swot up on that before report stage.

I do however want to speak briefly in support of Lord Roborough and Lord Catherine amendments 302 which I put my name to which really confirms the only impacts that should be addressed by any deeply that have been addressed by an EDPs should be disregarded the habitation regulations, we must make sure that any disregarding of the habitats regulations is absolutely forensic and rapier -like, not broad woolly and un-firms. They are really important building blocks for nature recovery and they don't get in the way of development if they are properly administered, it is process rather than substance and we can streamline them in a whole load of ways without wrecking them.

This is the nub of this bill if the truth were known, part three is about one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation I've seen, my first conversation with ministers in the Commons didn't reassure me when I said I was worried about the environmental impacts of the spill and the Minister said this isn't an Environment Bill don't worry about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, it's a Planning Bill. I support a number of amendments in this group I'd like to limit my in this group I'd like to limit my remarks to the debate on clause 83
21:27
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
remarks to the debate on clause 83 stand part of the bill. I was beaten at the post in signing it by Lord Roborough, I added my name and supported wholeheartedly. There are a number of reasons that I am concerned at this, it was remiss of me not to welcome the noble Lady the Minister back in her seat after the reshuffle last week, good to see her in her place. I understand that Natural England are actually looking to lose some members of staff in various parts of the country so that raises an additional? Over the resources and staffing at which natural England have at their disposal to do what is quite a sizeable task.

Lord Roborough in moving this group of amendments as he did asked why these powers are necessary. I know amongst the farming community there is great concern that these powers are before us in the bill this evening, the cost of buying land to deliver the mitigation is really not the best use of rate nature restoration levy and I agree with Baroness Young what she said about the role of EDPs in achieving what the government is seeking to achieve, I think the case has yet to be made about what we do need EDPs.

I would like to really explore other solutions perhaps private market solutions to environmental mitigation in this regard. And to support Lord Roborough and his argument for why the number of houses are being delayed from being built because of the policy the government is the policy the government is pursuing in this regard. What the government has achieved is probably something they didn't set out to achieve, that is the both sides of the argument the green lobby and the environmental NGOs and landowners and farming communities are equally unhappy at part three, the way it is drafted.

I accept the fact the government has tried to recover some of the ground through the government amendments but I am particularly unhappy about the drafting of clause 83 as it stands, it does beg the question of the resources available and why this particular role has been given to Natural England, they say against the background of the fact it does appear they are going to be losing staff and resources at a time when the government envisages such a major role as set out in the current clause 83, so I would like to lend my support to those amendments in this group, particularly that clause 83 should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not stand part of the bill. I rise strongly to speak for amendments 34, 346 DD NDE in the name of Lord Roborough. In the two
21:30
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
name of Lord Roborough. In the two years since Logix house last considered nutrient neutrality Lord Roborough's amendments seek to break the nutrient neutrality deadlock and delay this cat's cradle of conflicting regulations and allow us conflicting regulations and allow us to focus on those things for best effort. 3.5 years ago in 2022 nutrient neutrality rules were created, then over 200,000 planning applications in over 75 planning authorities. The planning authorities which for the most part have the greatest touting potential because they are the ones clustered around the conurbations and thus had the greatest capacity to deliver housing growth.

I was the council leader and one of these areas, together with our two neighbouring authorities over 45,000 houses in a plan was made and will never get Reeves over people's heads including affordable and social housing stop while homes aren't built. The amendment gets to the heart of this, it allows us to ask the fundamental question has to whether stopping housebuilding is going to clean up our rivers. At the outset let's be clear, the statutory responsibility Variously upon Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the statutory water undertakings for the effective running of sewage treatment works.

These bodies have the funding, the powers and the responsibility for cleaning up our rivers. But the nutrient neutrality rulings transfer those responsibilities were completely different class of organisations with no obvious financial resources to do so, local councils, the planning departments, local planning authorities and the housebuilding industry generally, it's a buckpassing from those who should be designing and in preventing solutions in favour of the RPA's and solutions in favour of the RPA's and Taking all the homes in the UK, the homebuilders Association estimates that of all the planning acquisitions built, it would only add 0.2% of the housing stock.

We existing homes in rural places like Norfolk or Herefordshire, might contribute just 0.2% of the total phosphate load in a catchment. Put another way, out of 500 potential mitigating strategies, 499 are more likely to reduce phosphate emissions encashment and prevent new homes from being built. In essence, not building a handful of homes in Ulverstone, will not clean-up Ulverstone, will not clean-up Rocklin abroad, to be very local. It is important to restrict why the restrictions have been imposed.

The test and the habitat regulations is to avoid significant damage to a special area of conservation. Significant damage, not purely. I will never understand why we have stopped our second-largest economic sector construction put tens of thousands people out of work while missing our housebuilding targets on the altar of neutrality, a marginal future game of -- Gain of just 0.2% while the problem exists here and now, we are raining at the wrong target by stopping housebuilding. Just ask the people of Hereford catchment of the River Wye, where they are building a few less homes -- Where the building a few less homes will save the river.

It is generally accepted that 80% of the nutrient load in places like Herefordshire comes from pulp and manures. Not the industry, or even existing homes. Still homes that having been built yet, elsewhere in your Lordships house the environment and Climate Change Committee recently heard that over 20 million tonnes of sludges, slurries and digest dates apply to land on anaerobic digesters and most of it, some of it rather, on valley sides. I would venture to say the government would be better advised to focus on this issue, rather than stopping builders building.

In essence, there is a dilemma. The focus on the 80%, or the 0.2%. For his wire like the noble Lord's amendment. -- That is why I like the noble Lord's amendment, it focuses on whether substantive problems. It directs ourselves not at the big numbers, not the trivial numbers, it stops us worrying about that 0.2% that might come from the building of new homes. For the flushing of their new homes. For the flushing of their lose and so forth.

And damaging the significant contributed the local economies and supply chains. And instead, it allows a regulatory focus on where the real problem lies. Which is possibly on organic manures, digesters on land, and whose nutrients become mobilise much later in the summer, and after harvest. As a moraines produce the ideal positions to break them down into mobile phosphates. Just not at the time when the growing crops are there to absorb them, so they run off. If we now focus on some of the big issues, rather than marginal ones, it might allow us as a whole government, or part of the governors family, to have a joined up approach.

-- Governance family. Looking at storage, which is the key to handling the problem. I think the key thing is, the best chance of breaking this deadlock, getting New Homes built quickly, as the noble Lord said, is to take part three here and work out how can we solve the problem, rather than misdirecting ourselves and really quite a small harm, with the big consequences that are harming our quality and ability to grow. And actually, getting grooves over people's heads.

People who are not just rich people, affordable housing, housing villages, all of this, we have to sweep it away and focus on the big target, not the little one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Part three of the bill gives you wide-ranging publish to NE, it has been involved in all aspects of pot three, much of which has been made three, much of which has been made upon the heat as the bill progresses. It also contains a good progresses. It also contains a good dollop of building in England. We
21:38
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
should be careful of agreeing this, wedding has been criticised as environmental aggression, and the EU has similar concerns. Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE, having regular press comments about the mistakes it makes, is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic, and inefficient in decision-making. It seems to focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner. And slow to embrace new technologies and environmental management. Farmers and land management have lost trust in it.

Which is a disaster for nature. It is not fit for purpose and I want to examine why. There seem to be some key factors, which have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure, where there is a prerequisite, a lack of in-house scientists and they sometimes don't have the expertise needed. Over the past 20 years, due to budgetary restraints, the best and therefore most expensive to employ, scientific experts have left the organisation. They choose to employ highly regarded scientists, but now with some notable exceptions, is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants, with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists.

Yet, it's an organisation whose judgements ministers must rely on legal regimes rest. Making no scientific judgements is even more challenging due to regulation 63 Making no scientific judgements is even more challenging due to regulation 63.5 of the conservation and habitat species regulations 2017. Which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the universal law which is a fundamental problem that only good scientists can tackle competently. The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment.

But here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving way to hypothetical risks, for which there is no credible evidence, and without being questioned. So, the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated. As without proper oversight, the system is open to abuse. Because of NE structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on prejudice, rather than science.

This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues. That safe decision attitude pervades all NE, it is now the ingrained cultural attitude and is the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and delayed development with little to no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE's assessments are general licence applications, 43 and 45, has revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding, the management activities are intrinsic, and taking a precautionary approach based on bird flu risks.

And a presumption of negative impact. My Lords, GL 43 and GL 45 were brought in to address environmental legal issues and not bird flu. NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it once without challenge and frighteningly, the bill seeks to create more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives of the members of the Board of Trustees are, they are not ecologists are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach.

Even if based on myth adopted by the case officer. It is hard to challenge from without. Developers challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE Developers know how powerful NER and through not want to go public for fear of damaging their relationships, and having greater difficulties with their schemes in the future. This -- This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those that wish to challenge them, one is from outside, one is faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of it in more detail in further amendments.

more detail in further amendments. Given approval by NE, scheming the market, only for LE to say it would refuse an application, due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistent, this inconsistency has upset bio law, and is a challenge to NE, I am told in retaliation, NE have no correspondence with bio care. Can I ask the Minister, given that identity have obstructed the private sector nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs.

I have also had the temerity to question any science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE have no hold on me. I wrote in some detail to the CEO on 22 April, setting out my concerns, on the science that LTE uses regarding wildfires and ask for a meeting. -- After long delays and not being allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff which included the words " We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach on evidence would be productive." However, I have now heard from the CEO who has offered a meeting.

It will be in October, six months after I ask for it. But it will not be taking -- But it would not be taking place, had I not ask the Minister, who to who I am grateful, to look at this matter. I asked loads to contract the arrogant attitude of NE with that of the director, who I About the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. However, her reply did give rise to further questions. And on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August.

The response was immediate at the meeting took place before the end of the month. Inadvertently, my Lords, with NE, an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm in Russia, has been created. This part of the bill does nothing to rectify the deep- seated problems NE has. A wise government would drop part three of the bill and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development, and growth, which this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's right having such complaints of debate on whether part complaints of debate on whether part three stand part of the bill. The whip will remind us were not here to do second reading speeches I agree
21:46
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
do second reading speeches I agree with that he will also remember that the advisory time-limit and the second reading was a mere five minutes to cover every single clause of the spill. That's why having a debate on trying to understand from the Minister what these clauses are supposed to be, what the effects mostly especially when there's been since as we know, since the bill came into the House the government has been forced in effect to table amendments. There would be a test of this bill, certainly part three, would be whether the new Secretary of State at the ministry would stand by the assertion Angela Rayner made when she said that there would be no detriment on the basis of existing environmental compared where this to go through, I appreciate that this but it would be helpful if the Minister might be able to articulate whether Steve Reed would stand by that assertion.

It may be that is part of what has led to the amendments as we have 40 heard, perhaps the amendments don't go far enough. Certainly the OEP was critical of the bill, don't need to go over their criticisms again, some changes have been made. My noble friend The Earl of Caithness talks about Natural England, I intend to speak a bit more about the matter in the next group of amendments but I think I just want to give a bit of reassurance to my noble friend.

One of the reasons for having the environmental principles policy statement is very specifically for the government to set out how it intended these different things like the precautionary principle were to apply and I'm conscious of what he says, but very specifically when it came to proportional principle I know because I wrote it, -- precautionary, it's the issue about risk. Traditionally there has been a lot of back-and-forth about hazard what the right approach the to the precautionary principle, by and large Conservative or Labour government have taken the approach of having a risk-based approach and I give you a further example, if we have bleach introduced today it almost certainly would not be allowed because the hazard of having bleach would be too great.

We don't do that, so I'm pleased to say in the actual government policy which is still valid today it says in all cases the precautionary principle is applied there must be sufficient evidence the risk of serious or irreversible damages plausible and real. So I hope that gives my noble friend a couple of assurances. The various parts of elements of part three where I wanted to understand and probe further what the government intends to do. If I turn to clause 58 it starts off by saying about Natural England choosing to do these, when Natural England decide to prepare an EDP, who is going to give that sort of direction? Why is it up to Natural England to decide whether it's going to prepare an EDP? It will be helpful for the Minister to explain why the government has come up with that phraseology.

We debate EDP is in a lot more detail so I don't need to go into every intricacy of the EDPs right now, it would be helpful to get a sense of what the primary legislation is trying to get at, it does feel a little bit like the designation's exploration of SSSI where it's left entirely to Natural England to decide whether to look at the SSSI, whether to extend them and so on. I don't think that is satisfactory either but it would be useful to understand what the government's intentions are by that clause.

In terms of, I was concerned going a little bit further on paragraph 86, section 86 rather. Before then I will go to section 68 subsection 4 and it would be helpful to get some clarity having accepted that a developer is going to pay the levy it can then rescind its acceptance, such that the developer ceases to be committed to pay that nature restoration levy. On the one hand we are saying the levy is mandatory and we are saying it's not.

In what circumstances has it been deemed that regulations might be needed to withdraw that? Perhaps a hold of element comes to a grinding halt, but I think there will be several of us concerned that this is just another way to stop people paying towards the levy. I made this point the other day in debate where the Chief Executive of Natural England came up with a series of assertions that it wasn't mandatory for developers to pay the levy and later also that councils could assess the validity of the EDP and being developed and the progress in making a decision on whether or not it was valid.

To have planning or grant planning consent. Turning to we get onto other issues with 59, I just wanted to also understand, clause 86 basically Natural England is mentioned pretty much everywhere in the Secretary of State now and again. Clause 86 basically saying, by the way, the Secretary of State back Secretary of State can decide anyone can do it. I have we gone to that level of detail about Natural England, getting compulsory powers, what it does is all these compulsory powers that currently are granted on the face of the bill to Natural England actually at the stroke of a pen much it could be one single person is given the power to apply compulsory purchase order to feels extraordinary.

I'm really concerned about clause 86 in general. I am conscious it might be, in trying to understand this clause in more detail I hope the Minister can elucidate, it may be that we want, the Secretary of State may want Suffolk Wildlife Trust to develop a plan. Or some other body, it could be somewhere special in Cumbria. I do congratulate the noble Lady and minister, given the only person who has any connection to the countryside, even the Prime Minister I'm sure recognises that Defra need somebody who lives and breathes the countryside in Defra.

It's pretty stark having given such huge powers to anybody, a designated person is defined in regulations, it could be anyone. We've seen this in the Employment Rights Bill where we discovered finally through debate in this House that a designated person or body like the trade unions could be given unlimited amounts of taxpayers money in order to do other elements of that. We are seeing that here. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what the stand part of that is seeking to truly achieve.

In terms of some of the other aspects I think in this debate I am conscious, I know people want to catch trains shortly after midnight so we shouldn't extend this particularly too much further, I do want to mention aspects of the mitigation hierarchy to get some clarity from the Minister recognising it's been brought up a recognising it's been brought up a few times today already. In the Commons Matthew Pennycook was very clear he didn't believe the mitigation hierarchy was in any way fixed at all.

The do no harm initially, is that, I wonder if the Minister could clarify that is exactly what noble Lords are being told today through this bill, that whole principle has been ripped up. That would be useful to hear. In this House. I will speak separately to my noble friend is about parts of the reality of the river while, some of it is the reverse to hot that somebody somehow has managed to cut down tons of trees there is no shade on the river anymore which has led to greater chemical reactions happening than perhaps Natural England would otherwise predict.

Finally speaking some of the amendments on the nutrients that my noble friend have tabled on the Frontbench, 346 DD, of course they are familiar because they are very similar to the amendments tabled by the last government of which I was a member. I would say gently to some of my noble friend, when I was looking at some of these significant changes that are going to be made when you look at the map it's absolutely tiny. Parts of the country.

I did wonder whether not some other parts of the country where we could consider building instead of perhaps going on such a controversial route as we took at the time? This covenant has gone far further with part three as it stands, but I look forward to some of the explanations on that and I completely agree with amendment 302 and 303 that have been tabled as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. I rise to support the general

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the general thrust of the amendments in the name of Lord Roborough. Focus of Natural England is bureaucratic and England is bureaucratic and precautionary. As we have heard from The Earl of Caithness. We need to The Earl of Caithness. We need to find a way around the freezing of Housing Development Study by Natural England under their nutrient England under their nutrient neutrality borders. This is a real growth killer in those areas. Lord growth killer in those areas.

Lord Roborough has tried to find an immediate remedy and some of his amendments. I have encouraged the Minister to look at these and perhaps come forward with some perhaps come forward with some further amendments to this important bill. I would remind the House that page 6 of the Explanatory Notes and the bill says that it is intended to the bill says that it is intended to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical of new homes and critical infrastructure.

My worry is that part three gives Natural England the power to bring about the opposite.
21:57
21:57
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
conversations with developers over conversations with developers over the course of the past month or two and universal conclusion is that part three makes it much harder to build houses. It adds huge levels of build houses. It adds huge levels of risk and uncertainty, tears up the arrangements that they were halfway through making to get things done and deal with the environmental and deal with the environmental impact of housebuilding, and impact of housebuilding, and substitute it with a regime where they will just not know what is happening, it will be really difficult to make commitments because so much could change.

If an because so much could change. If an EDP is imposed on the timescale of EDP is imposed on the timescale of imposing an EVP and what the consequences of an EDP will be makes the whole business antibusiness. I really hope the government will take really hope the government will take the chance of a change in Secretary the chance of a change in Secretary of State to look at this aspect of the bill and to say even if it's a good idea, we need to take it slowly good idea, we need to take it slowly and carefully and make sure that and carefully and make sure that people can rely on it because if you are setting out to build houses on any scale you are taking a long-term decision, you need to know how the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

landscape is four years in advance. The Minister has kindly organised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister has kindly organised a meeting with Natural England, in fact I've been to two of them, one I was late but the first one I was
21:59
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
was late but the first one I was there almost on time. One rather excited official from that -- Natural England describe what was going to be happening as the most exciting thing that had happened in his career. I'm not surprised. All their Christmases are coming at once. They are getting to have a role at the heart of planning and development, to design schemes across the country, to run the authoritative model to determine where how and when EDP's will be prevented I noticed several references tonight to the Soviet Union, an area I worked with extensively and I had exactly the same thought when I read this bill, this is real cost plan in action.

The idea of some apparatchik sitting in computer in Westminster and saying we will do that over there, it's absolutely what went wrong with the Soviet Union. Anyway I think there's been a lot of rude words said about Natural England tonight many of which they deserve, my only real encounter with them was when I tried to put a catchment scheme together up a river and you may remember the days when we had environmental programs that were still open so I was looking at doing one of those under natural one of those under natural incapacity said to me, you know it sounds like a lot of work and it's awfully complex are you sure you really want to do it? These are the people who are going to be designing EDPs across the country and inflicting them on us.

In the next group of amendments there will be the question of why is it written as Natural England is the only solution for all time why can't it be more general? I will leave that for others to talk about the next section. Two things that came out of my latter meeting with them, one was, noble members may be aware of this or may not, if you are a developer have to do by diverse teen again, PNG. -- Bio put diversity -- biodiversity net gain.

That is additional to the levy. The second thing I challenge them on outside the meeting was, if you are having these long-term environmental commitments and you are going to have, who is going to implement them? The answer came back basically environmental NGOs would be contracted to run them. These were going to run for years to stop what happens if said NGO goes pop in the meantime? Who takes over the liability for that covenant? Well it's the landowner. Which worried me it's the landowner.

Which worried me What happens if the implementer runs out, goes bust, fails to replant the thousands of trees they will contractually to plant, there is an issue that have to be addressed. There are so many moving parts in It is please take it away and rewrite it time, to cover off these many, many practical points that will only emerge when it's too late. As is often the case with these schemes. I just share those anecdotes and I would like us to remember that officially thought this was the most exciting thing that ever happened in his career, sitting at his computer, saying that it need ecologists because the computer would tell them what to do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above net neutrality, this levy, the neutrality, this levy, the biodiversity net gain levy, has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in condition, the astonishing layering effect. There astonishing layering effect. There is the green infrastructure recreational mitigation strategy, recreational mitigation strategy, there is the special areas, there are so many of these different are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over levies, each of which layers over and above, the cumulative effect of all of these is so great.

But what has to give us the affordable housing, the infrastructure, the community infrastructure levy, all those other, whiter improvements. And has he made some sort of consideration of that in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

research? He asked me to say before I sat down, I will now sit down, but he
22:03
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
has thoroughly ruined my evening, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please bear with me, I only have 20 minutes. It's been a very long debate. Because of clause stand debate. Because of clause stand parts, I need to go through everything. I will do my best to everything. I will do my best to cover everything, but anything I don't, I will get back to Lourdes in writing. My Lords, our vision is for writing. My Lords, our vision is for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. And the reforms in this bill are critical to beating our ambitious housebuilding targets, and also fast tracking the targets, and also fast tracking the planning decisions on maker E -- On major economic projects by the end of this Parliament.

We have been consistently clear that meeting consistently clear that meeting those objectives may not and will not come at the cost of the not come at the cost of the environment, and it is this ethos that sits at the centre of how we designed the Nature Restoration designed the Nature Restoration Fund. The new system is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharge, but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. We know the status quo has not been working.

Not for development, and neither for nature. As a noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, As a noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, mentioned concerns that have been mentioned concerns that have been raised. We do recognise the concerns about establishing an alternative approach. So, we have worked closely with stakeholders, and have taken their views on board. Which accumulated in the package of the amendments, that noble Lords have mentioned. And I would like in particular to thank the noble Lord, Earl Russell, to recognise the improvements they are brought to the bill.

But I would like to set out how this new approach is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced a very helpful diagram, a recent drop in session of the bill. We are working on it to make it fully accurate. And we will also share further information in a letter that will help noble Lords better understand and approach, provide reassurance, as to what we are trying to achieve. And I hope that will clarify a number of questions being asked today, including around the mitigation hierarchy and the concerns raised regarding developers, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

I apologise they haven't been ready for today's session but hopefully we will have them ahead of Wednesday. But it is important to highlight the NRF establishes an alternative mechanism to discharge existing environmental obligations. It doesn't create any new obligations. No repeal any existing environmental obligations. And where an EDP is put in place, it is open to developers to either use the EDP or discharge the relevant environmental obligation under the existing system. This is baked into the design of EDPs which will set out the capacity development they can support, and can scale the delivery of conservation measures according to the amount of development that comes forward.

This highlights another important feature of the new model. In that Natural England and ultimately the Secretary of State would not prepare an EDP where it wasn't necessary to support development and the environment. These are targeted tools and will only be used where there is clear need. Both from development and in an ecological case, the EDP could materially outweigh the negative impact of development. The noble Lord, the Earl of Caithness, and the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, raised concerns about the role of Natural England.

I'm glad the Earl of Caithness now has a meeting arranged, but as Baroness Coffey said, we do have the next debate and that is the opportunity to get into more depth around Natural England's role. I wanted to clarify that before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation, and only then will the Secretary of State consider whether the EDP could be made in line with the overall improvement test. This consultation is vital, because it is at this stage, where people can test the approach being proposed, in terms of the design and efficacy of the conservation measures.

This is also where Natural England will set out whether they are proposing to improve planning conditions, to drive action on the part of developers as part of the EDP. And in the limiting circumstances where conservation measures benefit a different side to the one impacted by development, the EDP will set out the ecological justification for these measures, and how they are more beneficial to the environment feature in question, than enter site measures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, can you clarify,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, can you clarify, the EDP is designed on the basis of offsetting some environmental damage. At what point do the developers choose whether or not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developers choose whether or not to pay the levy into it? This is what we are trying to do with the diagram and the note. It is to actually clarify all of that. If after the consultation and after the consultation and consideration of the overall improvement test and EDP is made, improvement test and EDP is made, the developers would then be able to make a payment into the EDP which was subject to any conditions, was subject to any conditions, discharge the relevant environmental obligation.

The responsibility of delivering conservation measures and the overall improvement would then the overall improvement would then move to Natural England, who would use the money received through the naturist levy to secure the naturist levy to secure the necessary conservation measures. These are then supported by a regime for monitoring and supporting, to for monitoring and supporting, to make sure outcomes are delivered, with the government amendments clarifying the actions that must be clarifying the actions that must be taken, where conservation measures are not to be performing where expected.

And once in place, the expected. And once in place, the EDPs will deliver a streamlined approach for developers while improving the conservation status of improving the conservation status of the environmental feature. This is part of clause 53, so I am just going to address the first amendment in this group because it is relevant to this clause. Which is the noble Lord, Lord Roborough's amendment 227, H, which changes the mitigation plan. I think we have different ambitions for the Nature Restoration Fund.

We are clear both in our aims and through the legislation, that the EDPs will go beyond simply mitigating calm, and will more materially outweigh the more negative impact of developments. So, I hope with that explanation, the noble Lord is able to withdraw that amendment. Looking at clause 54, the set out requirements for what an EDP must include in relation to area, type of development, volumes of the Branimir, duration of an EDP, providing clarity on the scope and setting clear expectation for Natural England as to what needs to be included when preparing an EDP.

Clause 55 introduces the concepts, the conservation measure, which are the measure to be funded by an EDP and introduces the concept of an environmental feature, which is the protective feature, the protected species, that is likely to be species, that is likely to be impacted by development and the measures seek to address and establishes the framework of the rules. And again, while on clause 55, amendment 302 and 303, table by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, seek to limit ladies application of habitat calculation is to the specific impacts identified in the EDP.

This is important and I'm pleased to be able to provide clarity and assurance on this point, as drafted, clause 55 subsection 1 defines environmental impact as one of more ways in which the negative effect is likely to because by development, as identified by the EDP, this means that it is application in schedule four, already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. Of course, there could be circumstances where they have multiple environmental impacts, and if only one of those then was addressed by the EDP, the remaining environmental impacts would still be needing to be addressed through the existing system.

Clause 56 requires Natural England produces charging schedules which is critical, because that will establish the rates in which developers need to pay to rely on the EDP under clause makes clear that different rates can apply for different kinds of development, covered by the EDP. Clause 57 sets out further detail, around the information Natural England has to be included in an EDP. For exact, an underlying environmental commission. Which is why an EDP must provide the current conservation status of each environmental feature, so that we can set a baseline for improvements.

And how they are measured. Now, looking at the procedures, clause 58 sets out requirements that Natural England must meet. The government has tabled an amendment to replace clause 58 with clause 57, A, which broadens the duties it contains Vodafone should have Natural England and the Secretary of State in and the Secretary of State in relation to this part. In light of that, the government is not seeking to support the inclusion of the current clause 58. In introducing the restoration fund, we have been clear this new approach will be expert led and equal logically sound.

Clause 59 is therefore central which secures the effective scrutiny. And has consultation process to lead to better EDPs, performed by relevant experts and local communities but also provide the Secretary of State with the assurance he needs to improve on EDP. The Nature Restoration Fund is not just about streamlining, what about using funds more effectively. Which is why clause 60 requires the Secretary of State to improve on EDP, one satisfied, it passes the overall improvement test. Baroness Bennett mentioned the importance of the overall improvement test, and the Secretary of State has to be satisfied, to be delivered by the end date of the EDP, so EDPs are focused on the timely delivery of environmental outcomes.

And, moving to reporting, the challenge requirements. Once an EDP is made, it's crucial can actually effectively monitor the conservation measures and progress made. It is vital for information. By performance of conservation measures in the remaining development capacity, are made available. It is important to have clarity, so practical steps can be taken if an EDP is underperforming. And also allows the Secretary of State to amend the EDP if required. Clause 62 has a reporting requirement, as said, and it also looks as to how the levy is being set, and the transparency around that.

So legacy communities and environment groups can continue to engage during the EDP's lifespan. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend EDPs in specific circumstances where it is necessary to do so, a exhibitor reflect you environmental information or to accommodate additional development. Crucially, the Secretary of State is bound by the same overall improvement test, as we are making an EDP. I think it was the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, who talked about the process for revoking and the circumstances and how that would be used, as established in clause 64.

Of course, this is the option of last resort, the bill produces safeguards to make sure we do not reach this point, including the ability to amend and deploy backward conservation measures if the monitor indicates underperformance. Development that is relied on the EDP priority relocation is not affected by the decision to revoke, the Secretary of State must then consider appropriate reactions to consider negative effect meant an environment of features where development is already committed to pay the levy, for revocation are suitably addressed.

Obligations of an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration, for developing consent, so recognise it is important to provide to challenge EDPs at the root of challenges in clause 65, and enables a claim for judicial review is to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date the EDP is published. Turning now to nature restoration levy, clause 66 sets out the framework. If a request is accepted by Natural England, the developers then committed to making the relevant payment, set out in the charging schedule which will be published.

Once the development has committed to pay the levy, the environmental obligations are altered in line with the EDP. To ensure Natural England can secure the funds to deliver the conservation measures, through the nature rest levy is sure to provide certainty. At the positive outcomes for needing to be delivered, will only be realised if the developer chooses to break them, therefore the Secretary of State must ensure the cost of the levy does not make it unviable. The regulators will be able to deal with a range of technical matters related to the ability of pay, such as cancellation or withdrawal of such a liability and are glacial will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 69 establishes rules about the amount that can be charged, under the nature restoration levy at the setting of rights, the levy regulations will have further detail as to how these will exactly be set. The schedules are intended to provide clarity and transparency for developers, as to the rates they will be charged to utilise an EDP and will be subject to consultations. We have also provided developers to have a mind of appeal if they believe the charges incorrect. Clause 71 sets the parameters for how the nature restoration levy can be used, crucially requiring Natural England spend money received through the levy on conservation measures that relate to that EDP.

We have also built in flexibility for the levy to be collected in a way that reflects the reality of how development occurs. Importantly, Galatians can also require the imposition of a condition of development secure condition of development secure All gone to court 75 which allows the Secretary of State issued guidance about any matter connected to the rest nature restoration levy and ensures Natural England all the public authority must have regard to that guidance, without this any update to the natural restoration levy would require secondary legislation limiting speed and taxability with which operational issues could be dressed -- addressed.

Turning to powers and duties conferred on Natural England and others in respect of the nature restoration fund. As we have heard Natural England will administer EDP and this will also include their administrative responsible of these in terms of monitoring and preparing reports. There will also be responsible for securing delivery of the conservation measures necessary to implement what is set out in EDP to ensure it meets necessary overall improvement test and delivers positive outcomes for nature. The function set out in clause 76 may include the developing to planned for example to create a certain habitat to untruth that improve the conservations status of protected sites, there will be instances where small prudent cost-effective or timely for another body with a proper authority Private business to carry out certain measures so this clause gives Natural England that The Secretary of State will also need to be able to use power of entry to survey and investigate land subject to appropriate constraints for example around timing and restrictions in what the powers can use for.

Clauses 83 and 84 provide Natural England and the Secretary of State with powers to put Compulsory Purchase Act land carry out functions. Lord Roborough and Baroness McIntosh asked why the powers are necessary, it's vital Natural England has the necessary powers in order to deliver a win-win for nature and the economy, in order to protect the environment at the same time as getting Britain to enable Britain to get building. What is necessary to put Natural England with these powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered they can only be used attempts to require land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory powers.

As a further safeguard use of these powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. The government has taken a cautious approach to exempt Compulsory Purchase Act powers but it's clear need to be available as a tool of last resort to ensure there is sufficient certainty when necessary and appropriate land can be acquired and conservation measures delivered. Clauses 86 and 87 provide the Secretary of State with the necessary changes to allow another body to exercise the same functions as Natural England. Baroness Coffey asked about this, we would not expect to designate anyone other than a public body and I would like to put Mike emphasise that any changes are by regulation via the affirmative procedure and would receive the proper scrutiny of Parliament which would ensure only Turning to the supplementary provisions clause 88 establishes a stand-alone duty to cooperate in respect of EDPs to ensure relevant public bodies and authorities engage in cooperation with Natural England.

We understand that bodies want to proactively engage in such matters but legislative duty will provide reassurance to local communities environmental groups and developments that systems are going to work together. Clause 89 relates to Ramsar sites, wetlands of international importance under -- and to date in England these have given protection through the policy as set out in the National planning policy framework and in guidance rather than through legislation. We proposed actions for the sites on the legislative footing when clause 89 provided for Ramsar sites to be treated in the same way as European sites under the Pabst regs process.

With that in mind regulations related to the nature restoration levy regulations to the designation of delivering body other than Natural England and regulations made Natural England and regulations made in consequential amendments which amended at Act of Parliament will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament or stop any other Statutory Instruments containing regulations made under this will be subject to the Negative procedure. With that explanation I ask the clauses 53 to 92 with the exception of clause 58 stand part of the bill.

Amendment 334 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough and supported by Lord Blencathra would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to prepare a report on the consolidation of wildlife and countryside magic 1981 and the habitat and species regulations related to planning I appreciate the parallel systems of the habitats regulations and the wildlife and countryside act and I appreciate the notion noble Lords intention in tabling this new clause however in practice this complexity has managed integrated processes which are well understood by practitioners full stop all terrestrial sites protected under the abs regs underpinned by size which also have protection of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

When it's advice is sought Natural England considers the protections England considers the protections under both legislation providing a single response. An omitted number of species are protected under both statutes as with sites Natural England consider protection under both together. They can undo issue licences that cover both bits of legislation if necessary. Moreover as a primary legal rather than ecological act exercise Aegean Sea would not be the organisation best suited to the review. Turning to 346 DD, D tabled by Lord Roborough.

I'm in full agreement with the noble Lord that and Lord Fuller and Baroness Neville-Rolfe that nutrient neutrality is an important issue however these amendments have echoes of amendments tabled to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act by the previous government has Baroness Coffey recognised will be unnecessary following implementation of the nature restoration fund. Also concerned this would give the Secretary of State abroad Henry VIII powers and raise concerns about the risk of environmental regression. Our approaches to address the issues that hold up development while addressing the outcomes for nature we will continue to work to improve the operation of the existing system, the NRF established an alternative approach I therefore hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment along with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his clause stand part. I'm most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this
22:23
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lords who have contributed to this debate and very impressed by the depth and timing of the noble Baroness the ministers responsible stop it was clearly a lonely place to be defending part three of this bill today. The concerns were well aired around the House about the impact of part three and the questioning about what bloom exactly it is that Earl Russell put this very well, where is the problem? Myself and Baroness Young have talked about surgical solutions to some of the issues we consider to be the problems.

I think despite the impressive response from the Minister I still haven't heard a justification for why part three is in this bill. Clearly I'm going to withdraw these amendments now and I would just like this committee to bear that in mind as we go through part three and debate the amendments, I hear a commitment from the Minister to work with the House and improve part three of the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but I still have this question of why it is there. In the meantime I will withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. In clause 53 amendment 228 Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coffey. I have tabled multiple amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have tabled multiple amendments in this group grouped together, in in this group grouped together, in essence the whole thrust is that really the Secretary of State should be in charge of this, not this be in charge of this, not this passed over to Natural England in primary legislation. The reason I say that is a number of factors here, I'm not going to do a big attack on Natural England but I
22:25
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
attack on Natural England but I think it's worth exposing some of the challenges there, unsightly conscious ivory spoken 15 minutes according to the clock but time goes quickly when you are having fun. In terms of one of the things that the Prime Minister has set out is that decisions shouldn't be palmed off all these other bodies, ministers should be accountable. That matters. I think one of the frustrations that the wider public as that too often it feels like ministers have either it feels like ministers have either lost control, given up control, and for a variety of reasons has often been deemed that some third party would be better off doing this than actually the government that has been elected of the day.

I don't think that's the right approach. It's absolutely vital recognising other pieces of legislation we had on the way getting here that not only that it's right that ministers should be held accountable, and while Natural England, it's an arm's-length body, it does have a sponsoring department of DEFRA, but actually it has its own independent board, there are certain rules is not particularly accountable to because it's a regulator, and then others are delegated through a variety of ways and importantly Natural England is formally the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State for DEFRA.

So as a consequence what I'm trying to do with this series of amendments is frankly if the Secretary of State wants to delegate a lot of the creation of EDPs to Natural England or others then of course that should be in their capability to do so. We don't need legislation to make that happen, that already exists. That is why I am very concerned or want to see despite all the other minor protections in place, is one of the fundamental reasons why believe it's the Secretary of State that should be named.

If we could actually get rid of quite a few clauses along the way, I don't wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering but in the answer to the last question about clause 86, it sounds like the ministers ready to accept amendment 333, I'm sure the noble Baroness Lady Young of Old Scone will be thrilled that as well, perhaps Lord Lucas may not be quite so keen. Recognising that. I think going a little bit further, we've heard in terms of delivery, this is where I do have a worry about how much in this legislation has been concentrated, it may sound contradictory at this point, thank God for that part of the bill that allows other people to that has specifically been designed or delegated or empowered Natural England to do in this bill, I think a lot of this might need changing.

I am concerned about the delivery capability of Natural England. Lord Cromwell referred to, this is like dreams come true, it felt like that for the Environment Act, quite rightly. Because ambitious targets were set and so far although I'm pleased that the Minister put in her recent response to me that you WA that yes this would definitely improve natural, I'm slightly paraphrasing, this is designed to improve that, the question is about time. How can we get on with the pace, the 2021 Environment Act is very specific in primary legislation on the face of the bill about the species abundance targets test that must be achieved by 31 December, 2030.

I'm afraid Natural England is not good at doing pace. There are so many people I've met who have been trying to plant trees, a whole series of them, and yet it's been To get the agreement, not the Forestry Commission who are slow enough as they are, but definitely well-intentioned. Natural England well-intentioned as well, but this is ridiculous that it's taking so long. We had complaints about housebuilding the other day, if I take perhaps not the simplest of tasks but it feels like it should be, we started on a journey for the coastal path for England to be completed by 2020.

Now there was a legal ruling by people for wind vs somebody which meant that Natural England had to do a little bit of reassessment of its coastal path. Even then it was actually the Senior Deputy Speaker at the Dispatch Box and said it would still be done by the end of 2021. I think I put to the environmental improvement plan will be done by the end of 2024. I think the latest is ministers are saying 25 or 26, the latest update is that of the 2,700 miles by I think it was August of this year, two thirds have been done.

Still 900 to go. That's just one example of well Natural England actually do what it has been asked to do, that what it has been asked to do, that I think a lot of developers will be trying to get away from these environmental obligations under these different things and that is why I am really concerned that basically outsourcing the same primary legislation, two completely different parties, admittedly at arm's-length. But I would prefer that not only do we have to sing more broadly, but it is very much that we can hold the Secretary of State to account, in effect, day in, day out, and what progress they are making.

Not only the environmental targets, but ultimately, that is what this is all about. It is to hit and to save this planet. That's why we negotiated so hard in Montreal. It's all being done to make sure we have a planet for the future. That is why I have put forward these amendments, and I beg to move 228 in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 53, page 90, line 8, leave out 'by Natural England.'
22:32
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Natural England.' I am most grateful to my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, for moving her amendments in this group and her amendments in this group and forgiving the preface to my amendment, number 333, to which I would like to speak. And I would let my noble friend, Lord Lucas can explain why he has amended my amendment, 333. This is attended as -- Intended as a probing amendment and I hope the remarks of my honourable friend Baroness Coffey will bear fruit, that the government is really wanting to apply the contents of 333.

So I have done the government a great favour in this regard. The reason I have tabled amendment 333 is really that clause 86, as it currently is drafted, permits the Secretary of State, by regulation, to designate another person to exercise the function of Natural England. And says that, in the section 2, clause 86, as currently drafted, for a designated person to replace Natural England, or Natural England designated person to exercise functions under this part of the act, only in relation to what is specified in the regulations.

So what I would like to press the noble Lady, the minister, on this evening is actually, Baroness Coffey prepared very well in this regard, because as my noble friend pointed out, Natural England act as an adviser to the Secretary act as an adviser to the Secretary of State. So, my amendment 333 333626 to say that a designated person must be a designated body. And a public body should act independently of the Secretary of State and the government. That is why I believe it is not to be Natural England committed to be a public body that can operate in that regard.

I would like to understand really the reasoning behind the government is drafting in this way. That the functions of Natural England could be passed to 1/3 party. As the powers of compulsory purchase in this regard. The, I think, if you take clause 83, together with clause 86, I would just like to put on record my concern about the threat of the future use of farmland, as they currently know it, for purposes other than farming. And perhaps the ease with which a designated person could ensure that these powers to compulsory purchased land was used in a way detrimental performing.

I would just like to confirm what I have understood the noble Lady, the minister, is saying, summing up the last group. I think she did say that the powers in clause 83 would only be used where negotiations have failed. It is my understanding correct? I would like to place on correct? I would like to place on record my further hope the efforts under clause 86 would only come into effect if the parties, i.e. The government and the landowner or farmer fails to reach a voluntary agreement and that is what I understood the noble Lady to safer stop so, I would just like to -- The noble Lady to say.

So I would just like to ask her to conclude that. For the sake of clarity, I would like to see clause 86 will only be used when a body is designated, other than Natural England. It will be a public body that will act independently of government. And actually, in that capacity, is more likely to gain the trust and understanding of those to whom the compulsory purchase order will apply. So, with those few remarks, I will I beg to move the amendment 333. 333.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I just briefly... Thank the noble Lady, Baroness Young, for cosigning the amendment
22:37
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
333.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness may not want to say that when I say what I'm about to say, which is that I signed about to say, which is that I signed up in support of this amendment without realising we were actually talking exactly the opposite direction for what they desired direction for what they desired affect should be. I believe this is a probing amendment. I was very pleased with the Minister in her response of the previous group, when response of the previous group, when she said she believed it to be another public body.

And I think the avoidance of doubt, should have that avoidance of doubt, should have that on the face of the bill. But I don't see this being a thing we would want see this being a thing we would want to do frequently. It would be useful to know what the thinking of the Minister is, about why this provision is in the bill. And I provision is in the bill. And I would like to regard it important that, if part three is about taking a strategic approach to landscape a strategic approach to landscape scale conservation, Nature Restoration Fund that there is some controlling mind controlling all of this, I think it has to be Natural England.

And I would like if any England. And I would like if any designation happens from Natural England to another body, another public body, that that should be Natural England's behest, not at the Natural England's behest, not at the minister's behest. So, it would be extremely useful to know why this is in the bill in the first place and at least a requirement for another public body, that could be designated. Perhaps the noble Lady can outline to us the circumstances that are envisaged in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. The amendments I have in here are
22:38
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendments I have in here are also a probing nature, but let me say first of all, how much support say first of all, how much support the amendments that my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, has put down. I had the privilege of being the web in this House, for the Ministry of, in the last years of John Major's government. At the time when BSE was rampant and the Countess of mar was active on the backbenches. Who I wish I was more frightened of.

The maths in those days was a shallower department, because almost all the powers and money ran through Europe. And one of the problems with BSE was it did not have direct control to do anything. As my noble friend, this anything. As my noble friend, this would all work better if there was first-line democratic control and what's happening here. Not by statute, to Natural England, but by the decision of the Secretary of State to Natural England.

So that you'll some decisions, the ultimate accountability, stayed with the department. I think that would make for a much healthier, more effective department. Amendment 328, A, looking at this business of delegation, says if we are going to designate, over nations, cannot be a National Park? It is really my question here. Is it the intention of the government? Is it a scope in law to make a National Park someone who is designated under this clause on the bill.

Because I think, if I understand the way this clause is intended to work, that would be a sensible arrangement and I would like to know if possible. Amendment 333, A, my Lords, I entirely understand what my noble friend is saying in her amendment. This is saying in her amendment. This is merely a. Place to put my question. How should it not any EDP delivery include the role for land managers are stressed as partners? -- As trusted partners? When we look at the difficulties Natural England has in making sure that it's SSS Is are in order, and I live in the middle of a collection of SSS Is N by order, supposed to be grassland, and actually, DNI brambles.

There is a real difficulty for an organisation Natural England, there is information on the ground. If they have long-term relationships with trusted partners who are embedded in the countryside, they are in a much better position to get things done. Farmers are generally, universally, were generally keen to deliver on priorities. To allocate 10% or so of their land for nature recovery. To allow this to be considered profitably. Private sector organisation, such as the environmental farmers group, which I declare an interest in as my brother is a director of it.

They have already developed catchment scale plans that dovetail with the proposed EDPs. Such existing delivery structures, alongside farm delivery structures, alongside farm clusters and catchment partnerships should not be ignored. My Lords, we already have the sort of partnership structure in relation to natural nature reserves. Only and hokum are the ones I think of being southern, but there are others, being very well run by private estates. Clause 76.3 provide Natural England with the power to pay others with the EDP, but it is passed on detail, it would be helpful to know the criteria to qualify acting on behalf of Natural England.

And what opportunity organisations could have in the process of preparing and delivering EDP. Clause 59 requires consultation on draft EDP but that is very late in the process. Consequently amendment 274 which is in the next group, it requires Natural England during the preparation of an EDP to ask for expressions of interest from persons or organisations that can demonstrate their suitability for delivering EDP, that would assist Natural England in meeting its obligation for clause 57.2, to explain why its measures are appropriate and what alternatives are being considered.

In addition, through subsection D of amendment 311, to clause 71, rather later in the groupings, the aim is to encourage consideration of delivery by landowners and managers in the local area, given that this will lead to better outcomes for nature and the local area. Clause 86, which allows the Secretary of State designated person to replace Natural England in using the bill's powers seems very wide-ranging, without limitation, without clarity, as to the nature of the designated person. Given the Natural England has committed to working with trusted partners in its strategy, it seems relevant to extend this relationship into legislation and to define the criteria for the appointment of trusted partners.

Which is currently lacking. The review recommended that criteria would need to be developed to ensure a consistent approach is taken, on how autonomy is earned and recognised and attained. So, amendment 333, A, seeks to embed the role of trusted partners in EDP formation and delivery and define the criteria for appointment. My Lords, I fully understand there may be other ways of doing it, but I think it is really important that some trusted partners should be a core part of the strategy.

core part of the strategy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name down on the amendments from my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, who made an excellent speech in trying to excellent speech in trying to persuade the government to take out Natural England and put in the Natural England and put in the Secretary of State. As I said, when I spoke on the last group of amendments, Natural England have amendments, Natural England have become unaccountable and unquestionable and they are also
22:46
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
unquestionable and they are also acting as judge and jury in their If you Google Natural England and you come onto the government UK Natural England website, it says what we do. What they say is, we are the government's adviser for the natural environment in England. If they are the adviser, then this is the Secretary of State who should be totally accountable and the Minister in this House accountable who we can question, because at the moment we cannot question Natural England in the way that we can question ministers.

I think that is entirely wrong and so I hope that the government will agree with what my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble friend Baroness... Can I just ask the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just ask the noble Lord question as to whether this is question as to whether this is something that he wants extended to other government agencies. He envisaged that the Environment envisaged that the Environment Agency for example or should be held by ministers only delegated on sufferance to the Environment Agency or to Forestry Commission site different position because it's a non-ministerial government department, I'm just trying to understand whether this is something understand whether this is something the noble Lord thinks is a good point of principle for government relationships with all its agencies, relationships with all its agencies, whether this is a witchhunt against Natural England.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Natural England. No it's not a witchhunt against Natural England by itself, because I think a lot of the agency suffer from exact the same problem stop from exact the same problem stop this bill is giving Natural England huge executive powers which hasn't huge executive powers which hasn't got at the moment, those executive powers should be done by the Secretary of State so they can be Secretary of State so they can be questioned in Parliament. Baroness Coffey also talked about Natural England capabilities.

I think it's worth looking at some of those capabilities. They manage a national nature reserve, it the only one that they have -- managed directly itself. It was supposed to be a beacon of the best practice and beacon of the best practice and demonstration. After 70 years of quango management of the 25 sites of special scientific interest only five are in favourable condition as assessed by Natural England itself and the rest 80% either unfavourable, declining, or in one case destroyed.

It's moved to Dartmoor. The trust between the farmers Natural England farmers landowners and breakdown -- broke down so seriously two years ago that the Conservative government had to commission a review chaired by David Thurston and that reflects very badly on Natural England. More recently Natural England have launched a new interactive people map and invited the public to use it to inform responses to a live DEFRA com conversation on heather burning one would think that was fairly simple and straightforward and what could go wrong? Well within minutes of the map becoming live, owners farmers and tenants highlighted major inaccuracies in this new mapping tool making any work based on it of spurious value.

These were not minor glitches but basic failure of environmental cartography. Natural England track record is not very good. In fact it's pretty useless. I would therefore strongly urge the government to change the wording of the bill has proposed in the amendments of my noble friend Baroness Coffey and myself. I would like to commend and support the amendment of Lord Lucas. If we are going to go down this road with Natural England it is hugely important that trusted partners take on the work of running the EDPs.

If you look at some of the farming clusters already set up and ready to do this, it's much better that people who live and work the land other ones who are truly should take over and run the EDPs rather than the quango based elsewhere were not there on a daily basis. I will be talking more about the trust in partner in later amendments of the principle of what Lord Lucas wants to do is absolutely right. to do is absolutely right.
22:51
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Arise very briefly to speak to this group amendments all on the role of Natural England. This is a big group amendments are not going to respond to everyone at this late hour. What is clear is that there are remaining concerns about this bill. In terms of not weakening nature protections and in terms of the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There is two problems here, a complexity of what needs to be done and the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation should it be passed.

Natural England is absolutely central in terms of delivering environmental delivery plans and the nature Restoration fund. I do just want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today because I do think this is important because the government can't both create more complete case it systems as a result of their actions that require more people to actions that require more people to do more things to see that the duties made by the legislation get done and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut.

That tension between almost 2 different sides of government does worry me, it worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just parked out there. Turning to Baroness Coffey's amendments, of course I fully understand what the intention is understand what the intention is that it's about looking at responsibility and reining in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done there is argument then Natural England may not be as accountable, I understand that.

My problem is that this bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and we have the nature restitution fund, I don't think just changing the wording of the bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground, and there are the ways that we can do that in terms of holding the Secretary of State to account in any case and holding Natural England to account. I don't particularly feel that's a solution for the complexities created by the legislation.

I primarily want in terms of speaking to amendments I want to speak to 328 a in the name of Lord Lucas and 333 in the name of Baroness McIntosh. Amendment 328 a, I wasn't certain if it was a probing amendment and the noble Lord -- noble Lord clarified it was, I welcome it as a probing amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response, my view is that the National Park authority should be included and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

Turning briefly to amendment 333... In the name of... Baroness McIntosh and Baroness Young. This amendment seeks to clarify that the powers given to Natural England under part three can only be delegated to a public body. I welcome this amendment I think it's a good one, I also know what the Minister said in terms of the previous group and that the intention the of the government was that it would only be a public body. I think we definitely welcome that statement, I think there is still perhaps the need to have this amendment to have that on the face of the bill.

With that I will sit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down. Back in 2022 when the nutrient neutrality rules came in this started as a 3.5 year hiatus that started as a 3.5 year hiatus that Prince prevented the holding of new homes, bankruptcy, closure of local building merchants, liquidation and many smaller builders and this folding of so many white van folding of so many white van journeymen contractors, plumbers, plasterers, reefers and tilers. What
22:56
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader I sought to find It didn't take long to identify Natural England of the culprit. I asked them for their reasoning. They advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single telegram of phosphate anywhere in the catchment regardless of the distance from the special area of conservation the needed protection under the regulations. They fundamentally refuse to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be advanced in any other walk of life or by any other regulator and their approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Serling in broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipton over 30 miles away in Donna, late series of rivers before that those rivers passed by.

It's nonsense. I don't deny there might be some infinitesimally small theoretical link between the lavatory and selling and the toilet in Shipton but anyone who has studied for a no level or GCSE in maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance. The effect of the loo in Shipton will be 3030 that is 900 times less impactful. That is if the water from that loo didn't percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into the plants or carried away in the farmer's crops.

In which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is. The designated person when I asked said, as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approaches to assume that all phosphorus will at some point reach the site albeit it may take varying lengths of time therefore it's a possibility of contributing to eutrophication impacts now and the future. You don't have to be a scientist to realise that that is poppycock. I asked them for the scientific evidence, they sent me a slim paper repeating the assertions with a long list of academic references.

So I read them. The academic references the Natural England said supported the position argued the reverse. They made it clear there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the environment aquatic environment, as I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your lodge's house I gave evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point, I will not list all the ways in which I said the scientific papers contradicted Natural England stance, but in summary they disregarded a whole variety of natural mitigation factors including, confusing absorption with absorption, denying percolation to the underlying aquifer, ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils found in the attachment and along the river.

The related effects of high soil pH. Looking up high phosphates, deletion of rainwater that flows out to sea and incorporation of deposition of organic manures in the crops and on the brooks and streams. The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooktop by Natural England. In short, Natural England's interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. The justification used to selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence. No wonder the regulations of the test is one of significant harm.

Natural England misdirected themselves and advise ministers to substitute the word significant with any. How can they be trusted? If they act in this way. The misrepresentation of the risk of flushing toilets in new homes has allowed itself to prosecute a war on housebuilding industry without justification. They are the enemies of growth. I can hardly believe I'm going to say what I'm about to say. This is probably the wants and only time I believe with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because she has fingered Natural England in the article in The Times related to by the noble Lord Lord Russell as those being the enemies of growth.

Further, I then scrutinise Natural England nutrient calculator which I found it to be loaded with floors and poor assumptions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which amendment is he referring to? I'm talking to one of them, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm talking to one of them, the ones in the name of my noble friend Baroness Coffey, but also 333. So I scrutinised the nutrient calculator. Used the wrong digital elevation Used the wrong digital elevation model, used the wrong areas of model, used the wrong areas of influence from sewage treatment works stop no allowance made for excess capacity, going to come to an important point in the moment. The incorrect number of residents per incorrect number of residents per property was assumed.

Which is a significant area where there is holiday homes, it assumed a much greater water consumption in each house than we knew to be the case house than we knew to be the case will stop the numbers of manures coming out from out outdoor pig units was underestimated by somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times by reference to the DEFRA times by reference to the DEFRA booklet RB 209, suffice to say there calculator is orders of magnitude adrift and then there was a completely arbitrary 20% buffer applied over and above their applied over and above their calculator number for no justifiable reasons.

It was all very shoddy. The reasons. It was all very shoddy. The dodgy statistics have resulted in an extra five to £15,000 extra tariff extra five to £15,000 extra tariff per home for every house built in what is essentially the entirety of the district in which I live and the My point of raising these points is for all its manifest shortcomings, the bill contemplates that we will reward this quango with new powers. Do simultaneously enlist them. Advise the government as to the science, manage the extent of the problems, sister limits, suggest policy remedies, presumably it applies to the drafting of regulations.

Become the regulator, acting judgement in the mitigation process, devise schemes in competition with private interests. Price their own schemes whilst as I have experienced, in pursuing some of these things, noting the private alternatives with cost. Operating the own EDP schemes, possibly purchase land in pursuant of the schemes and take so much time to do it they will be lucky if any homes are released by the end of the Parliament. Though I like the idea of Natural England, I do not think they are a fit organisation to undertake this work.

Even if they were, this bill would make them simultaneously judge, jury, executioner, as a monopoly supplied with advice interpretation and remedy as a self-governing unaccountable quango. I've not been in the House long but I know a conflict of interest will hit one. An obvious grounds for judicial review. If Natural England had any sense, they would see the jeopardy they are being placed in. We are being asked to make statute law where there is no separation of duties between a single monopoly operator acting as regulator, and operating with a fiscal incentive and conflict-of-interest to set phases to themselves and crowding out what is starting to be developed as a globally significant innovative private mitigation industry.

3 1/2 years down, at least 3 1/2 years to go, at best seven years of not building, these enemies of growth have no regard to the wider economy, the plasterers plumbers etc. So I totally support my noble friend with all her amendment, and Baroness McIntosh, when we say that we need a different approach to this. Supporting a single regulator, a single organisation to do all those multifarious things cannot be the right thing especially when their track record is one of ignorance of the science.

And the mendacity to misinterpret it, not just to the public but to ministers, the industry, and everyone else.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in this group of amendments concerning part group of amendments concerning part three of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The particular focus on the role and powers of Natural England. Due to the time constraints, I will not address each amendment in detail. Many of these amendment are rightly probing in
23:04
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
amendment are rightly probing in nature. The seek clarification, reassurance in some cases, correction. Others go further proposing the removal of references to Natural England entirely. Placing the powers instead with the Secretary of State is accountable to this Parliament. The Secretary of State should, in this instance, meets DEFRA, rather MHCLG as has been suggested another amendment. I would like to see clarification from the Minister. I understand that as far as EDPs are concerned, Natural England might be reporting to MHCLG rather than DEFRA.

If that is the case, I would be absolutely appalled because, whilst Natural England has a lot of scientists who are expert, the good thing about DEFRA is they know what they don't go back to natural and lymph answers. I would be worried if EDP is driven by the Department of local housing and government, many of whom cannot tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly. We must get an answer that. I want to say at the outset, later in my speech I will come onto some of the criticism of Natural England in this bill.

I would think greater power should be restricted. I will not join an attack on Natural England as an institution. I say to the Earl of Caithness, I greatly admire his expertise on biodiversity. He participates in every bill and adds considerable knowledge. But I do not recognise some of the most trenchant criticisms of Natural England in his last speech. I have come across the scientific expertise and technical contributions, and I believe they are widely respected. He made a point about staff losses in Natural England.

The difficulty is, Natural England requires to recruit and hire highly professional biodiversity students, and those with expertise in Flora and fauna and there are not many about. When they are employed, as soon as they have their feet under the table, they get snapped up by other organisations. Natural England can't afford to pay the level to keep them. I'm confident this will have sufficient expertise to do the job. The Earl of Caithness also said that England only managed one natural nature reserve, and there was also criticism made about the board.

The problem is, Natural England board are not allowed to consider any socio-economic matters, the effect on farming, and the law simply state the 2006 at that if the scientific evidence is there that they are special and need to be protected, we have no option but to make that decision on scientific grounds. I reject any suggestion that the Natural England board or others were making perverse decisions and not taking into account the economy. Final points, I say to Baroness Coffey, it was my understanding nearly the whole of the coastal path had been signed off and submitted to ministers for approval.

I think it has nearly all been approved, the maybe 20 or 30 miles which have not. Of course it is not open yet because there is construction problems. How do you put it across an S3? I hope the Minister will be able at some point to answer a question explaining how much the coastal path has been completed by Natural England and the government. That was slightly not in my brief but I thought I would try and deal with the points. Part three of the bill does have unprecedented powers given to Natural England.

This would allow them to take land away, not because of public interest in the structure but to fulfil EDPs. Landowners will be forced to apply for subsequent payments from Natural England but we are given no detail about how these payments will be set or enforced. All landowners will be granted the right to refreeze. Such a model fundamentally alters the relationship to the landowner and the state and does so without adequate consultation, accountability, and clear regulatory safeguards. Under the proposed system, developers will contribute to a centralised fund rather than meeting site-specific environmental obligations.

That fund will be spent by Natural England on generalised environmental approvals elsewhere. This raises serious concerns. Not only are we placing local mitigation to offset the scheme but we are creating a system in which Natural England becomes operational body, the financial manager, and the regulator all in one. I agree with my noble friend that this is a recipe for conflict was the lack of oversight and delivering risk. Natural England will be responsible for monitoring a governing the very schemes it has designed and funded, and worryingly there is no separation of powers.

There is no mechanism and no guarantee. The consequences of this are profound. Planning authorities will bear the ultimate responsibility for approval and of element and will be rightly cautious about relying on untested underfunded and centrally managed EDPs. The result may well be an increase in planning refusals not fewer. We must look seriously at Natural England's capacity to carry out this enormous new responsibility. I do ask the Minister, how many EDPs will Natural England be expected to prepare an over what timescale? And with what funding and staffing? Despite the huge increases in funding by the last government, we know that Natural England is under resourced and understaffed, and all the new work you'll have to do.

As it stands, they do not have the capacity to deliver what is being asked of them. Beyond funding, they will have the problem of finding skilled ecologists required to make this work. Hundreds of them, on top of the thousands of new planners, builders, and tradespeople, for planning ambitions. As Natural England is competing to get those experts, you can bet the outside bodies and developers will also be grabbing them so they can have answers and challenge the EDP decisions. The issues of funding, certainty, and operational capacity are not theoretical.

They are central. Funding pipeline through the Nature Restoration Fund is inherently predictable for how can Natural England plan be delivered in this way? And finally I returned the proportionality of the powers. Under part three, Natural England will be granted forcible entry powers, paltry purchase order powers, and the ability to set its own fees or without direct parliamentary accountability. These powers could extend even to allotments, proposition for noble Lords. I know that Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group.

And I wish to engage constructively with her going forward. I end as I began by saying this is a criticism I have of the proposed powers and the bill that I do not accept some of the more trenchant criticisms of the success of Natural England today. His mistakes have been made, difficulties are there, but nevertheless I think there are good people trying to do a good job for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

biodiversity in the country. And I was one of them. My Lords, there have been a number of amendments tabled in this group by Baroness Coffey, Lady group by Baroness Coffey, Lady McIntosh, and Lord Lucas would seek to amend clauses 53 to 55, 57 to 59, to amend clauses 53 to 55, 57 to 59, 86 and 89. I will consider the
23:13
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
86 and 89. I will consider the amendments together as they relate to who can undertake the role of developing and implementing our EDP. I will begin by turning to amendments that seek to remove Natural England as the body who can undertake the role of developing and implementing the EDP named on the face of the bill, as well as adding Natural England to the list of consultees for EDP. We believe that Natural England is the most suitable delivery body given the expertise in relation to protecting species, existing statutory functions and powers, ability to work right across England.

Removing Natural England as the body who can undertake the role of developing an implement in the EDP will also remove the intentional checks and balances between the role of Natural England and the Secretary of State. And just to confirm, as it stands in the bill, the Secretary of State referred to, is that for MHCLG. Clearly DEFRA and MHCLG work closely together during this process. Natural England is responsible for developing and EDP. Mission to the Secretary of State. In the implementation of that EDP after it has been made.

In answer to the Earl of Caithness, the Secretary of State accountable for determining that a draft EDP meets the overall improvement test, making EDP and taking remedial action in if delivery for short. These members were to pass, or legal responsibilities passed to the Secretary of State. Natural England is a government adviser on the natural environment will still need to support the Secretary of State to prepare EDPs and deliver conservation. But without being named on the face of the bill that would alter the necessary powers and functions to enable efficient delivery, or to provide assurance of the rigour independently of the secretary of state.

The bill contains many safeguards to ensure that the body is charged with the developing and implementing will perform its role to deliver improved environmental outcomes. With these safeguards and recognising the relevant expertise held in Natural England, we feel it is right to reflect the central Natural England will play in the face of the bill. More broadly, I would highlight that the government is taking concerns about the efficacy of the regulatory landscape Krili seriously. And is already taking action off the back of the review and I thank Lord Lucas for recognising that.

To ensure the regulatory landscape in all relevant parts of the system are performing well as possible because we need to give greater confidence. We are already expediting several of the recommendations made by Dan Corrie. I will mention a few of those. We are looking at a lead regulator, a single lead regulator for major infrastructure projects, in order to speed up approvals. It had to be raised around that. We would revamp environmental guidance, that is to identify opportunities to remove duplication, ambiguity, inconsistency.

Looking to streamline permits and guidance, to speed up work put an end to delays, that slow down decision-making. We are looking at improving the planning permit portal, we are looking at updating digital systems to speed up planning applications. Recommendations we are considering is the new DEFRA infrastructure board to accelerate the delivery of major infrastructure projects by facilitating greater collaboration, strong oversight within DEFRA and arm's-length bodies. Looking for more autonomy in working with trusted nature groups to benefit from new freedoms to carry out conservation and restoration work without needing to apply for multiple permissions in every step of the project.

There is a pilot collaboration between Natural England and National Trust. Looking for a green finance boost to give businesses greater confidence to invest, and a range of environmental benefits. To improve biodiversity to better water quality, and policy statements for regulators so we have clear guidance on measuring objectives and also a continuous program of regulatory On On who On who can On who can implement On who can implement the On who can implement the rule On who can implement the rule on On who can implement the rule on ADP and as has been said there may be instances where it is appropriate for another body to take on some or all of the Natural England role and just before we go onto this just to clarify for the Noble Lady Baroness McIntosh in terms of a CPO that is only considered attempts to acquire land by Greenland have failed, where there are no credible alternative options for conservation measures and there is a compelling case in the public interest, just to clarify they did have that correct, from what I said before.

Clause 86 and 87 provided by the Secretary of State to make the necessary changes to allow the body to exercise the same functions as Natural England and as I said in the previous debate any changes in the regulation made from the affirmative procedure and receive proper scrutiny of Parliament which would ensure only an appropriate body could be named, so to come to the noble Ladies amendment as I mentioned previously we would expect this to be a public body. And to some examples.

All from the Noble Lord Lucas, yes, the power to designate could be used to designate a national where appropriate and also just was noting National Park authorities would be consulted on that. Or you could, for example, where you had a coastal area use the Marine Management Organisation. Now the kind of examples where that would take place. And we expect Natural England when delivering this to delegate functions to other organisations if there are functions in relation to conservation measures that extend beyond Natural England's expertise.

I hope the examples I have given demonstrate that we are looking at that. The bill has been drafted to allow this approach with expertise and that includes land managers and we would expect them to benefit from conservation measures and so diversified their own revenue streams. Finally, I would just like to reassure that Noble Lord Blencathra that making very good progress on the coastal path I was very pleased, recently, open sections of it. Having given those explanations, I kindly ask that noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Lords that have contributed today. I should have mentioned that my Noble should have mentioned that my Noble Friend co-signed a lot, pretty much every single amendment in that group. And I and grateful to him for group. And I and grateful to him for doing that. I think that the Noble Lady that minister may have actually Lady that minister may have actually attracted a field or questions and answers on certain things, so I am sure we will return to aspects of sure we will return to aspects of this at report stage.

I want to assure noble Lords I I'm not trying to have a big attack on that. I to have a big attack on that. I think we want them to succeed in nature, there are just too many examples where they have already got stuff they should be getting on with stuff they should be getting on with and with triple SIs and that like. I will debate separately with my Noble Friend that Lord Blencathra because Friend that Lord Blencathra because I am relying on data published just last month in what I have said about the coastal path being an example.

And there are stories I could say And there are stories I could say but they are from another debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but they are from another debate perhaps and with that I beg to withdraw the amendments in my name. Is it your Motions pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Two to nine, Baroness Coffey, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved, we now move to amendment 231, Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move
23:21
23:21
23:21
23:21
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
agree that this discretionary power granted to Ministers would be helpful in a hypothetical helpful in a hypothetical circumstance where natural England's EDPS does not follow the government's intentions? I will be government's intentions? I will be government's intentions? I will be arguing in later groups in support of my Noble Friend Lady Coffey that Natural England should continue to report solely to the Secretary of report solely to the Secretary of State for DEFRA rather than to MHC or G as has planned in the bill.

I or G as has planned in the bill. I am deeply concerned that reporting to two separate departments is likely to lead to significant complications in management, direction, and allocation resources. direction, and allocation resources. The amendments in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Blencathra are sensible. Amendment 278 would require Natural England to have regard to any local nature recovery regard to any local nature recovery strategies preparing an EDP. The interaction between EDPS, that mitigation hierarchy and mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity net gain is complex for development already but the development already but the interaction between EDPS and other interaction between EDPS and other strategies for nature recovery is also complex, especially when the conservation measures specify that EDP interact with them.

My Noble Friend is right that these should be taken into account by Natural England and we are interested to hear about the Government would accept these amendments. Amendment 277 air limits the number of EDPS Natural England may make a Chair and I think this speaks to questions about Natural England suitability as the body for making EDPS. I know that several noble Lords have expressed their frustration in specific cases were Natural England has not gotten things right. I therefore hope that noble Baroness the Minister will be able to tell the House what assurances she has had four Natural England and the skills in placing effectively and this part of the bill is designed to unlock development, so any mistakes that have to be resolved will hint at the achievement of that overall objective.

The man was in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Lucas and The Earl of Caithness are all sensible amendments that probe the crucial questions on EDPS. The reality is that we have still not got real clarity and how well EDPS will fit into the existing environment and regime. I know that the Noble Lord has done some very good work on trying to understand as the noble Baroness the Minister described earlier exactly how this new process for development fits into the wider picture and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister can help clarify these issues further.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed close 53 page 99, 29, at end insert the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

99, 29, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to 31 moved by my Noble
23:25
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
Friend. And also speak to the other amendments which are in my name together with that of my Noble Friend Lord Blencathra. Currently the bill requires the EDP to send out the measures that are to be taken to address the identified impact on environmental features and achieve overall improvement. But no justification or explanation is required. And I believe that is wrong. Amendment 249 is needed to ensure that an EDP states on the scientific basis for the conservation measures considered appropriate as this will provide greater confidence in the ability of the EDP could contribute to an overall improvement and therefore improved outcomes for nature.

Monitoring will also be key to achieving success required by clause 57 seven and so it is important that this and associated costs are seen in EDP in almost 55 six. In addition, this amendment seeks to lengthen EDP of local nature recovery standards and other relevant policies. So that it is clear Howard contributes to local nature and to identify the timeframe required given that this would vary in accordance with the impact being addressed. Amendment 274 requires Natural England to define at an early stage the proposed conservation measures and then seek expressions of interest from persons and organisations that suit their suitability needs.

This is key as it opens up the opportunity of the private sector involvement and would also help any to meet their obligation under section 57 point meet their obligation under section 57.2. I propose the same question that I did earlier, to the Minister, given help Natural England have treated bio pool as I mentioned earlier on in amendment, what confidence can she give the committee that Natural England will seek the private sector in a proper and fair manner when it comes to EDP? Because if they don't they will only be doing EDPS themselves and it will become a state owned disaster.

I turn now to amendment 207 in the name of the Noble Lord Cameron and myself. This amendment requires the land use promo, refers to the land use framework which was mentioned by the noble Baroness young on when we were discussing amendment to 14. This amendment is to ensure that the choice of land and the choice of land management is to be used for an EDP is not directly contrary to the principles laid out in the coming land use framework.

In that same way some of us might bulk at the idea of using food producing land for sale solar panels we might equally balk at such high production land being set aside solely for diversity with the emphasis on the word solely. Because we can produce food and biodiversity from the best land if managed properly. So, I believe it would be sensible if this bill pre- empt the production of the land use framework and make allowance for its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appearance. My Lords, I rise in support very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise in support very briefly of amendment to 31 in the name of Lord Roborough. Because as we start we are starting to get a
23:29
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
feel from the representatives of Natural England and I have listened carefully to what the Noble Lady the Minister said from the previous groups. And I think we are starting to get a feel for how the process by which we might even get to the starting line of clause 53, as I said, there is going to be a process by which Natural England has proposed the research, identification, assessment, proposals, whether it be for bluebells, barnacles, it does not really matter, we are going to make recommendations to Ministers.

There will be some proposals and presumably some draft procurement because with the proposal there must be some sort of idea. Consultation, selections, resignations, pricing, final procurement, legal work. And I think the figure that came to mind that we had was it will take about 3 1/2 years. There is less than four years of this Government remaining, three quarters, so if this process contemplated by clause 53 proceeds it will not result in a single new home being delivered and occupied within this Parliament.

And so I do ask the Noble Lady under 53 what sort of timescale does she have for the implication of the benefits? When is the first person going to be able to move in to a home that has been unlocked by these processes? That's the first point. There is another point as well that there has to be some and before we even get to that stage there has got to be an approach to what Natural England and that UK, the operator here, is going to be providing.

What are they going to be offering? Are they going to offer a permit or a licence? A permit tends to be a tradable asset, but the last thing anyone wants that has got a long memory is to do is to go back to the days of lung milk quotas wears a licence can be surrendered back at the point at We need clarity on this before we even get to the consultation side of the EDP. Then there is the multiple layering, is it for 30 years, as he is, EDPs only meant to last for 10 years.

I can't see clause 53 a single new dwellinghouse being unlocked, delivered, and occupied in the rest of this parliament if we go down this path. This will stop development, not unlock it. I find myself unexpectedly agreeing with the Chancellor, and identifying all this well-meaning but counter- productive regulation holding back growth, holding back getting groups over people's head. So I asked the Minister, what timescale does she have in mind for the processes envisaged by clause 53 being completed? At least we can start getting these homes built.

And if it isn't in this parliament, what are we doing here?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments to 53 in this group, I hope the Minister will be able to hope the Minister will be able to give me some comfort in the way that, as to the government intention
23:32
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
towards the private schemes which after all the noble Baroness and I were both involved in the Environment Bill when it was going through. We were setting up a system where people were making 30 year commitment to look after a piece of land properly. Now the whole system appears to be turned on its head. And no one knows what the future of it is. And no one knows whether they should be going ahead with the schemes that they put together to provide the gain where it can't be provided on the site.

And one of the farmers in my local council is entirely suitable for restoration of best quality chalk grass and the scheme is just dead in the water. Nobody knows what the government's intentions are. This is going to be viable? Will everything be undermined by Natural England doing it itself? Will there actually be a role for the private sector in this area? Nothing is certain anymore. When you set out to get people involved for 30 years, there really ought to be an understanding on both sides of the House that 30 years should be respected.

That we should try and keep things stable for that level of time. So if the government can give me, and the people I find myself talking to, some real understanding of where the government's intentions are, with respect to all the private sector has done to date and what it might do in the future, what direction we are setting out what comfort they can give that it is worth their while to them continuing to do what they're doing, I should be grateful.
23:34
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want to thank the noble Lord for his amendment because we can't just think about EDP in isolation, it is important that we look at the wider context including biodiversity net gains that the EDPs will slot into. In that regard I think it is incredibly important, that before we get to report stage, that the government makes clear its response to the consultation on biodiversity and if the government were to decide to significantly change biodiversity net gain for the smaller sites which was up for grabs, that would have hugely detrimental impacts and it would be important for us to know that before we get to report stage, and how we then think about other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment we might wish to bring forward. My Lords, have tabled amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, have tabled amendments to a Jackson 61, specifically, this to a Jackson 61, specifically, this requires that an EDP must pay not requires that an EDP must pay not just regard but you regard to the Local Nature Recovery strategy Local Nature Recovery strategy published by authorities in that area. This matters because we have been on this journey now right been on this journey now right been on this journey now right across the country were I agree that rather than these EDPs that we are debating, that the Local Nature Recovery strategies will be the Recovery strategies will be the building blocks of how we rescue nature of this country.

Reason nature of this country. Reason being, local people know what is going on, have a sense of their going on, have a sense of their place in the community, but also achieve different powers at local achieve different powers at local government in order to not only consider planning decisions but also consider planning decisions but also other aspects of infrastructure that come together towards it. By and large, across our country, the large, across our country, the strategies have been done at the county level.

It is not true in every geographic county. There are somewhere unitary councils, and I can't remember the reason now, I think for example Northamptonshire is split into. But one of the things that is important that I believe will happen with the EDP, of course nature knows no boundaries in terms of administrative convenience as to how councils determine, and building on the Lorton principles which will be vital in trying to ensure that we have nature recovery. It is important that the public authorities at the high level which often are not the planning often are not the planning authorities, the key parts, it is authorities, the key parts, it is normally the tier, if not the unitary, not the lower tier that unitary, not the lower tier that tends to do the planning.

They should have due regard to discussions about what has been put discussions about what has been put in place. And extensive consultation is going on right now around the country. country.
23:37
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I will rise briefly to this group of amendments which all look at various aspects the relationship between Natural England and the scope and framework of timetables for an EDP. I will speak very briefly to amendment 231, 249, 253, 274. Taken together, they are about strengthening the framework for environmental delivery plans and helping to provide further clarity and safeguards and accountability. To my mind, I am reading all of those amendments is having a probing nature to them without asking further questions and seeking further clarification from the Minister.

Amendment 231 in the name of the Earl of Caithness, Lord Blencathra, seeks clarification from the Secretary of State that the secretary of state should be able to issue guidance to Natural England on any designated authority, on how an environmental delivery plan is proposed. I assume this is about ensuring consistency across the country, setting clear frameworks for public consultation, and providing further protections. Amendment 249 in the name of the Earl of Caithness, Lord Blencathra, is about adding detail and transparency, this amendment requires the environmental delivery plans to be monitored to show the scientific basis.

The alignment with local policies, and the timeframes for addressing environmental impacts. Again this is about making sure the planned stand up to scrutiny and deliver measurable results. My noble friend has spoken already to amendment 253 250 3C in the name of Lord Lucas so I will note the comments that have already been made. 274 requires Natural England to define the measures believed necessary and to invite expressions of interest for the delivery of persons or organisations.

Finally, amendment 277 A seeks to limit the number of EDPs Natural England is expected to deliver the first two is. With four in the first year, 12 in the second year, and if capacity permits, that could be extended under this amendment. I assume this is a probing amendment. I think it would be better as a probing amendment. And I'm interested in the Minister's response to that in terms of how many EDPs there is capacity for. Taken together, I think these are all probing amendment seeking some further clarification from the government.

government.
23:40
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this grouping of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. The matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, and how the EDP relates to local policies. The Local Nature Recovery strategy, the land use framework, the timeframe required to address via mental impact. The bill as currently drafted alongside the government amendments we have already tabled require these matters to be taken out.

I can assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing the EDP. Turning first to amendment 274 tabled by the Earl of Caithness, which would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP. Firstly, it would require the conservation measures to be needed to address the via mental impact and for them to be defined. Secondly the pre-consultation period during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies.

And thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed the existing provisions of the bill at clause 55. The existing provisions already allowed Natural England to delegate provisions to other bodies including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method, creating an additional pre- consultation period, would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. And regarding the land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in DEFRA such as the food strategy, they are obviously going to be part of any consideration.

We all work together closely and you actually talk to each other, may surprise some, because we want these to be delivered effectively. Moving to amendment 231, seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to issue guidance related to the making of an EDP specifying various topics that has been covered. It requires Natural England or any other body carry out functions under this part to comply with the guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters which Natural England must have regard to for carrying out functions under this part.

Guidance should be used to guide Natural England not compel them. This would be more appropriate for a regulation making power subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP. been applied when making the EDP. Turning to amendment 277A, we believe this amendment would be unnecessary as Natural England were only ever operate within the capacity when it is producing EDPs.

Turning to the concerns raised by Lord Lucas in 253C regarding the model and the existing biodiversity net gains, I wish to assure noble Lords that the NIF biodiversity net gain are distinct but complement you policies. It focuses on enabling developers which encounters specific environmental impacts. Whereas the other applies to all new developments with limited exceptions. I want to come to the point raised by Baroness Parminter. She raised an extremely important point regarding the consultation and, when we would get the outcomes that would be before report.

It is an important question I will take it back and have a look at it for noble Lords. In answer to Lord Lucas, and to give reassurance, I would like to be clear, the NRO will not affect existing requirements to deliver PNG. It is a freestanding obligation outside of it. I hope with this clarification noble Lords will feel able to withdraw amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Might I ask whether she might give some consideration to the question I posed which is at what question I posed which is at what stage, following the pattern set stage, following the pattern set out, the concentration per unit and devising of schemes does she think devising of schemes does she think the first dwellinghouse will be completed and somebody occupies it? Will it be in this Parliament or the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

next one? I clearly can't give a precise date to the noble Lord. We know that date to the noble Lord. We know that Natural England has indicated that the areas in which they have substantial evidence and information substantial evidence and information at the moment, for example on newts, they are the ones I will move ahead for because they are the ones they already have the information in
23:46
23:46
23:47
23:48
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
closed 43 stand part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In clause 54 amendment 232, Baroness Coffey, not moved. Amendment 233,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Blencathra. I rise to speak to amendment 233 and 28 3am might name. Speaking on and 28 3am might name. Speaking on behalf of my Noble Friend Lord Roborough who amendment to 818, Roborough who amendment to 818, 281B, and to go. All of which sit in this important group concerning this important group concerning consultation and environmental consultation and environmental delivery plans. As ever, the detail matters and in this case the missing matters and in this case the missing detail is the voice of those most directly affected, the landowners and farmers will be expected to not only comply with but often to only comply with but often to deliver the outcomes envisaged in EDPS, as my Noble Friend Lord Roborough mentioned at second reading the Secretary of State in reading the Secretary of State in The Other Place said course we expect farmers and land managers to expect farmers and land managers to benefit with the Nature Restoration Fund providing opportunities to diversified their business income.

diversified their business income. That is a generous sentiment. But nowhere in this bill do we see any requirement for Natural England to consult with land managers and consult with land managers and farmers but indeed to work with them at all in delivering environmental improvement with EDPS. At a time when the Government imposed the when the Government imposed the family desk on farms/ lengthy tables and shut the door on applications I am surprised that Ministers have not seized this opportunity to allow farmers and landowners to be part of the solution, commercially and practically they provide environmental services to developers Natural England itself.

That brings Natural England itself. That brings me to the amendments in my name, a man to 33 ensures that were Natural England specifies the maximum amount of development permissible under EDP they must consult qualified surveyors. This is not a bureaucratic embellishment. Instead, it is about ensuring that land value in global economic conditions and development viability are properly understood by professionals who work in this space everyday. Without that we risk setting thresholds that are arbitrary potentially unworkable and, in some cases, detrimental to both development and consequential.

And let me take a moment to explain why this is not merely desired but it is essential. Clause 54 subsections five and six require Natural England to determine and specify the natural amount of development that EDP might apply to and this may be defined according to the bill by area, floor space, number of buildings and units. The values and expected values or that scale in the case of nationally significant infrastructure project. These are not ecological metrics. They are economic, planning and valuation change, yet, quite simply, Natural England does not have in my opinion, is single representation of these measures.

Some of my Noble Friend will be profoundly disagreeing with me on, but were Natural England consider signing to the criteria for SSI, it produces experts of the highest calibre, some world-renowned specialists and species inhabited conservation. Thus the strength of Natural England that valuing property is not. And we do not need to speculate on this. We will not be feeling any broad confidences here because Natural England's own 2023/24 animal income it was crystal clear under section on heritage assets it states there is valuation uncertainty affecting Natural England's heritage assets and limited market evidence of comparable assets being bought and sold.

That line stems from a change in international accounting standards which requires Natural England to revalue its national nature reserves from a historical reading to a current one and for three years not one auditor, not one surveyor, not a single person would agree or could arrive at an agreed valuation because Natural England does not work that way, it was never designed to, so I ask if a nature reserve which depending on your view is absolutely the price or worthless because you cannot build on it how could they make informed decisions on the skill or value of commercial development? How could biodiversity experts determine whether 5 acres of housing is better or worse than 5 acres of Amazon distribution? Or AI datacentre drawing of vast quantities of water.

These are not theoretical questions, the real world decisions with significant implications and Natural England has asked them in clause 54. How can Natural England assess the number of units being built or assess how they might be used? When such usage can change frequently depending on the occupancy. And how can they look at the values or expected values that lie firmly in the realm and even therefore the Preakness would have caveats depending on local markets, service access, constraints and so on.

These clauses, as it stands, at best it asks Natural England to make judgements because there qualified to make and at worst it risks undermining both development viability and environmental outcomes. Amendment two to three is not only a safeguard but it ensures that decisions are made with the right expertise, without it we are effectively asking marine biologists to assess these parts and land values. And amendment to a three is a practical one, it changes the consultation period from 28 to 40 working days.

For nearly 28 days it simply is not long enough to engage meaningfully with what can be highly technical and significant documents. 40 working days is excessive and it aligns with best practice in the planning system and gives consultees a fair chance to respond. On behalf of my Noble Friend I also commend to the House his amendments to one and 218B which would require Natural England to consult with both farmers and landowners after an EDP has been prepared. It is crucial that consultation is not limited to the very stages and continues throughout the process, particularly in the practical application.

This depends on partnership and these amendments are not possible and to the principal, on the contrary it would help to make it work and it would build trust, increased by income and make outcomes more deliverable 's retreat farm owners and landowners is not passive in the policy handed down we are far more likely to achieve a land scale restoration achieve a land scale restoration that we all see. Indeed I joined the Natural England board in 2018 that had just launched a policy cold working in partnership, I can't the exact name but it was moving the strategy and try to enforce things into the working partnership.

And I think we also support amendment to 80 in the name of my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey that ensures neighbouring authorities that with the local nature reserve strategy must be consulted. The noble Earl Cromwell is not in his place at moment, but we are talking about EDPS we see the Natural England official, so it was the most exciting thing in his life. Well maybe that is the same senior official that told us if yours are looking at the Lord Gove 21 Environment Act did not local nature recovery strategy with a greater step forward in British history and he was really excited about it, now he has screeched his loyalty to EDP instead, but local nature recovery strategies are absolutely vital to delivering nature recovery at every inch.

An amendment to hundred and 85 looks at all the bodies listed in clause 59 to be consulted by Natural England. So, we are asking for something very modest here. That those that will be most affected by EDPS have a seat at the table and consider what has been asked of them. These are constructive, proportionate, and necessary amendment and I hope the Government will consider them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Noble Lord wish to move his amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment? I wish to move the amendment. Lost 54 line 25 at end insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lost 54 line 25 at end insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.
23:57
23:57
00:00
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent. Can I thank the noble Lords Lancaster and Roper and the noble Baroness coffee for their amendments which all address the consultation which all address the consultation environment for EDPS? And those noble Lords that have heard me speak in this House on many occasions will in this House on many occasions will know that I love consultation. It is know that I love consultation. It is It is done properly. As I set out in my opening statement on the NRF my opening statement on the NRF model as a whole, we recognise the importance of allowing relevant authorities, businesses, and individuals to have their say in the development of EDP's it is with this development of EDP's it is with this reason that we have included the requirement that they are all subject to consultation.

We have also proposed Government amendments to clarify the consultation requirements when amending an EDP. The Noble Lord Blencathra asked a The Noble Lord Blencathra asked a number of questions about Natural England's planning and evaluation expertise in bringing forward an EDP. And I do think that many of his questions really related directly to questions really related directly to the planning process and would be taken by the local planning taken by the local planning authority or of course the Secretary of State. If it was that of State.

If it was that infrastructure project. But looking With the relevant experts would have cost be an important part of any development or an EDP. Naturally it would reduce surveys and consider the best available scientific evidence in order to assess how members of any given type will impact on the relevant environmental feature. This process will then allow Natural England a set of maximum development that can be covered by that EDP. And the bill also gives the opportunity for this to be included in guidance.

Local recovery strategies are an important tool to protecting nature and I would be grateful to the Noble Lady Baroness Coffey for highlighting the important role these can play in forming EDP's. The results ready a requirement for Natural England to consider this in preparing an EDP and a further duty to consult expected to consider consideration. We also understand that depending on the content of an EDP, since it does me have particular interest in specific EDP's and I thank the Noble Lord for a bra for raising their interests this stage.

Through the existing public consultation requirements, any business or individual and of course that would include farmers and managers who are affected by an EDP will have the opportunity to respond to them if they raise any concerns. An it would not be practical for Natural England to go to each business in the whole sector, for example the fishing sector due to the large number that it would need to consult. Nor would the Government wish to impose any duty or obligation to respond to a I believe the bill strikes right balance between enabling and striking consultation.

And I hope the proposed government amendments which require Natural England to consult on any significant changes would be sufficient to reassure Baroness Coffey that her amendment is unnecessary. Turning to amendment 283 A brought forward by Lord Blencathra which proposes to increase the minimum period from 28 to 40 working days. The bill already includes provision for the Secretary of State to specify a longer period of public consultation on draft EDP in the regulations. The 28 working in the regulations.

The 28 working day period specified in the bill is the minimum period that can be the minimum period that can be allowed. If this assurance that the consultation period is a floor and not a ceiling, I would hope Lord not a ceiling, I would hope Lord Blencathra would agree to withdraw his amendment.
00:02
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her response. I think I really need to stress the importance of involving farmers and landowners as part of this in working with the government, if we are to be successful in restoring our environment and getting proper nature recovery. I know the noble Lady has to set 28 days is the minimum. The normal planning rule is 40 so it should be 40 days rather than the minimum. I would be sceptical that Secretaries of State would extend the deadline.

We want the minimum possible for any consultation. The points we have raised today enforce that proper engagement, and risk plummeting policies that may be impractical or detrimental, both economically and environmental. The noble Lady said that of course Natural England would consult various experts on the size of units and the cost of valuations. That is a lot of different people to consult. I'm not convinced the answer should be practical. I think the idea of involving the chartered surveyors is the only way to go.

I shall read carefully what she said. I suggest that the amendments before us are modest and crucial. They seek to embed meaningful consultation ensuring that those who must deliver the outcomes have a real voice at the table. It is building trust and getting buy in. And if people are being consulted they are more likely to buy in and there will be more sustainable environments for rural communities alike. I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw. Is it Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave with. Amendment 20 and 34. The Earl of Caithness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caithness. I beg to move amendments children 34 and speak to amendment 235 and 34 and speak to amendment 235 and 236. We turn now to clause 54 236. We turn now to clause 54 subsection 7. It relates to that subsection 7. It relates to that start date and end date of an EDP. I will take those in reverse order. I believe in order to ensure any full outcomes, the EDP timeframe should not be specified in legislation.

This will clearly depend on the This will clearly depend on the nature of the environmental impact and the conservation measures required. I am sure we will all required. I am sure we will all agree that restoring and recreating can take some considerable time to achieve full functionality, and given climate change and other given climate change and other environmental impacts, EDP measures will require management, and the will require management, and the need for review and ongoing monitoring. What happens at the end of 10 years? How do we retain the overall improvement? How do we know that the developer won't change the
00:05
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
new site? How do we know that the farmer will return the site to farmer will return the site to through production in the whole way? These are hugely important These are hugely important questions. In order to have this I questions. In order to have this I don't believe it should be limited to 10 years. So moving to the start, given that it will take a long time, I have to look at the start date I have to look at the start date because it is essential that the moment planning permission is moment planning permission is granted, and the loss of a protected granted, and the loss of a protected site is imminent, it is vital that Natural England should get on with it.

According to clause 58, there's it. According to clause 58, there's a lot of process and consultation carried out, and not a moment is to carried out, and not a moment is to be lost. We must bear in mind that the government is legally committed the government is legally committed to halting the decline in our diversity by 2030. The concern of diversity by 2030. The concern of the start date moved Lord Cameron and he sends his apologies. " Time Harry near.

And before us lie deserts of vast eternity, where nature puts us all goodbye. " We need to fire a starting up ensure Natural England gets on with it,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hence the amendment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 54 page 91 line 27, after the date, page 91 line 27, after the date, insert " Which may be no later than six months after planning permission
00:07
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

six months after planning permission has been granted. " This group of amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs has drafted in this bill, despite the welcome improvement offered by the welcome improvement offered by the government creates considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address harm being be developed to address harm being done elsewhere. Amendment 235 A recognises 10 years is the blink of an eye in parietal terms. It takes decades and centuries to restore an environment. The fastest maturing trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century.

And it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatlands. I amendment suggests 30 years as being the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years as opposed to 10 is this is approximately prone generation timing. That is appealing. But also this is consistent with biodiversity net gain unit. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard I prefer this to amendment 236 in the name of Lord Cameron.

Amendment 234 from Lord Cameron of Dillington is a sensible one. It ensures there is a coincidence of the timing of the EDP and the commencement of development. The concerns expressed by developers as a reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that the relevant occurring, I'm sure the Minister can understand the concern and will be keen to ensure developers do not carry the reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.

I hope the Minister can reassure us in her replies that the concerns are being addressed. But I do believe there is a strong case it is you should be dealt with on the face of the bill rather than the guidance that can be changed over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose on the face the bill.
00:10
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
On behalf of Lord Krebs with his amendment to hundred and 65 which has notable similarities to amendment children 37 in the name of Earl Russell. If Lord Krebs were here I'm sure he would wish to have the noble Lord cosigning the amendment. Amendment 265 deals with one of the financial concerns we have for the EDPs which is this issue of the timing. As it stands at the moment, if you have Habitats Regulations or biodiversity net gain, then remedial measures have to take effect before the developments are undertaken.

Whereas for the EDPs, that is not the case. And there is the fundamental question, what happens if the desired mitigation measures, as outlined in EDPs, don't happen? They don't happen for a number of reasons, they don't happen because some of the money may not come in from developers was that they have the right to appeal as we heard from an earlier debate. That not enough developers sign up for an EDP and therefore not all measures can be delivered.

See don't get enough of quantitative biodiversity gain to deliver the mitigation measures for a site that has already been damaged. The amendment in the name of Lord Krebs does two things will stop when it cause for implementation schedule for an EDP, and I think the Minister in summing up will say whether the government amendment partly addresses this, but I have not seen anything from government amendment that deals with this more fundamental issue around the fact that, for an EDP, the remedial measures don't come until after the damage has been done.

Whereas what Lord Krebs is amendment says is, if Natural England believes there will be irreversible damage, then those measures have to be undertaken before the damage is caused. That is this you are seeking reassurances from the Minister tonight.
00:12
00:13
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to conservation measures and implementation. The amendments seek to add provisions on a range of matters relating to design and implementation of design and implementation of consultation measures. The bill as currently drafted alongside the government amendments we have tabled the committee already require or the committee already require or enable these matters to be addressed enable these matters to be addressed in an EDP. I therefore trust that in discussing the amendments, I can assure the committee that the existing provisions, bolstered by the proposed government amendments, the proposed government amendments, already require or enable consideration of the points race will stop telling to amendment 234 tabled by Lord Cameron and the Earl of Caithness, which seeks to require an EDP start date, must be within six months of the date of any six months of the date of any planning permission granted in reliance of that EDP.

Develop and cannot rely on the EDP to the EDPs in place. So planning permission in place. So planning permission could not be granted in reliance on an EDP without that EDP having been an EDP without that EDP having been made by the Secretary of State. As the EDP will always be in place before planning consent can be granted, reliance on EDP, I trust the noble Lord can be assured on the noble Lord can be assured on this point. As part of the package of government amendments, we will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures, with specific reference to the timing of development going forward.

This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. This will include detail as to whether and which consultation measures must be in place in advance of the develop in coming forward. Ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature. This would form part of the Secretary of State's assessment whether an EDP would pass the overall test. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Turning to amendment to hundred 35 tabled by the Earl of Caithness, which proposes a requirement that the end state of an EDP must be appropriate to the conservation measures proposed. And that the EDP must include review date. The end state of an EDP cannot be more than 10 years from the date it comes into force. It is to ensure there is clarity that the overall improvement will be achieved no later than 10 years after the EDP is put in place. However, there is nothing to prevent an earlier end state being specified for EDP, where that would be appropriate either for the type of development or the environmental feature.

As drafted, Bill already allows Natural England to tailor EDP end states where appropriate. The maximum period of 10 years provide a backstop to ensure we see overall improvement within a reasonable timeframe. By allowing the EDP end date to be driven by the nature of the conservation measures, this could lead to longer EDPs which, whilst still bound by the overall improvement test, could lead to longer delivery timelines for improvements to be seen and felt. Bill already includes a requirement for Natural England to publish a midpoint report setting out whether EDP is on course to meet the overall improvement test.

And an endpoint report setting out whether the overall improvement test has been met. Additional reporting requirements apply when EDPs revoked. Given the existing reporting provisions already within the bill, and the ability for EDP to have an end date earlier than 10 years, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment. Turning to amendment 236, put forward by Lord Cameron, the government agrees with the noble Lord that the right mental improvement of the conservation measures delivered must be maintained beyond the end state of an EDP, where this is necessary to addressing the ongoing environmental impact from development.

That is why the bill already requires the conservation measures can be managed and maintained for the duration of the EDP or longer, as required to address the right mental impact and development. The requirement already ensures that where development continues to have an impact on the end of the EDP period, the conservation measures must continue to be managed and maintained for Judgements for the management of land will be made on a case-by-case basis or a delivery partner and if land is no longer needed in such circumstances would need to fall apart of any such agreement.

Turning to amendment 265 tabled by the Noble Lord and ably moved by the noble Baroness Farmington this would require that conservation measures be delivered to a tight schedule and that this is secured in advance of development coming forward for failure to do so would lead to irreparable harm to protected sites or species. The package of amendments the Government has tabled at the committee includes a requirement for Natural England to set out an EDP the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures by reference to the development to which the EDP applies.

This ensures that information on the sequencing of delivery is set out in the EDP and that flexibility is retained should element come forward at a different pace to that anticipated when the EDP was drafted. A central feature of the pond is the overall improvement test and this test requires that the conservation measures set out at EDP must outweigh the negative effect of development on the environmental features to which the EDP applies. Any EDP that irreparable harm to an environmental feature be that a feature of a protected site or a population or a protected species would be unable to satisfy the overall improvement test.

If the overall improvement test would not be met then the Secretary of State would be unable to make an EDP. A smaller clarify the strength and ambition of the test the amendments the Government has tabled the committee provide further assurance that irreparable harm would not occur. Firstly, Natural England are required to take monitoring to demonstrate their conservation measures are having their intended effect and secondly should the monitor ensure the conservation measures are not achieving their intended effectiveness than backup measures that must be included in an EDP must be deployed.

And finally should an EDP reach its end point and be revoked and the final point shows it failed to achieve the overall improvement test and the Secretary of State must take such remedial action as the Secretary of State considers proportional to materially outweigh the negative affective development on the environmental feature. The existing provisions the amendment has put forward by the Government therefore ensure that conservation measures are put in place to an appropriate timeframe and that irreparable harm is avoided.

Moving to amendment 2358 and 235 be tabled by the Noble Lord Roborough which the Noble Lord indicate as probing amendments to build to expand the lifespan of an EDP with a maximum of 10 years to a minimum of 30. While I believe we can see that drive behind this amendment, I fear in practice it would not have the Noble Lord wishes to achieve. EDP's by their nature will be strategic and forward- looking and will require Natural England to demonstrate how conservation measures can outweigh The The EDP.

The EDP. For The EDP. For this The EDP. For this will The EDP. For this will require Natural England to model a range of considerations such as the level of development on the plant.. The scale of impact on the protected feature and the cost of bringing forward conservation measures. These matters will need to be understood well enough for the Secretary of State to be able to take a reasonable view as to whether the conservation measures will materially outweigh the impacts of the development benefiting from the EDP.

Pushing this. For a maximum of 10 years to a minimum of 30 would not only reduce the ability of EDPs to come forward but would increase the amount of time before environmental benefits need to be realised by 40 decades because of this risks leading to greater interim impact and increases the risk that remedial measures are required over the EDPs lifespan or at the end of the 30 years. For example, we do not expect it to take 30 years to address the issue of neutrality for housing and there is no reason why developers should paying to address these issues so far into the future.

With this explanation, I hope the Noble Lord feels free to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 237 tabled by the Noble Lord Earl Russell and the noble Baroness Jones which would require Natural England to schedule the implementation for each conservation measure contained within an EDP and require those measures to be put in place in advance were Natural England leave significant environmental damage could occur. I should start by drawing the noble Lords attention to a man with 245 a which would require an EDP to set out the anticipated sequencing.

The sequencing would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of the development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental features of this would form part of the Secretary of State's assessment of and EDP would pass the overall improvement test. Front conservation measures must be or may be necessary in instances where habitat or species are rare or fragile, requiring immediate action to improve its conservation status before development impacting on it could be approved.

Given the safeguards already in place and for all these reasons I have set out I hope the noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments.
00:23
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
I grateful to the noble Baroness that Minister for that reply. I will have to study that some care given the time of night, a lot of it really did not make much sense to me when she talked abut the clarity of the overall improvement within a certain date and we need to demonstrate environmental benefit as demonstrate environmental benefit as soon as possible. It does not work like that. What if there is a flood? Drought for two years? All sorts of things in nature and the best schemes, you can see all of this on paper from your core Peterborough.

That is the real world, it is a very different story. My Noble Friend Lord Roborough mentioned planting deciduous trees. They are not very high, there is still a heck of a lot of work and this would take years I have lived on blanket and I know we can't rework it overnight. This is environmental theory were not practice, but I will read what the noble Baronesses and come back to this at support stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is ideologically special that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 235. Amendment 235 a, Lord Amendment 235. Amendment 235 a, Lord Roborough, not move, amendment 235, Roborough, not move, amendment 235, amendment 236. Amendment 237, Earl Russell, not moved, the question is Russell, not moved, the question is that clause 54 stand part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

In clause 55 amendment 238.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 238. My Lords, the beauty of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the beauty of the Committee stage is Baroness Young was talking with the various views that have been taken due to the that have been taken due to the committee stages we can read all committee stages we can read all those horses, this particular one, trying to find language, precise drafting of the bill, which achieves precisely what is intended and is as clear as possible about what it is clear as possible about what it is that we intend.

And as we get in to clause 55 of cause playing central provisions were the environmental features must be identified the impact of development on such features must be identified all in the environmental delivery plan and the conservation measures needed to secure the overall impact must be identified. And we come onto the debate although do note amendment to 66 is in this group, not quite you are why. I think probably it should be in the group relating to the overall improvement tests that we get to on Wednesday.

The most important amendment in this group is not my amendment but it is actually the Government which is amendment to
00:27
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
47 a which the effect of which is to 47 a which the effect of which is to add in specific language about the measures that have to be taken of set and what is required in those in order to secure the overall order to secure the overall improvement test. That they would make a greater contribution to the improvement of conservation measures in the future and measures that in the future and measures that address the environmental impact of the feature itself.

I think that is the feature itself. I think that is a helpful amendment in the package of amendments that I think have of amendments that I think have enabled the structure of the bill and the objectives to be slightly and the objectives to be slightly better than they started out. better than they started out. Amendment 238 comes to the beginning of clause 35 and relates to the identification of the environmental features likely to be negatively features likely to be negatively affected by a development.

Now, we know what the protected features of the protected site or the protected species are because those are set out in clause 92 in the interpretation of this part. I am interested in what the Noble Lady that Baroness has to say about her amendment and I wait to hear what she has to say about that. What amendment 38 would do is in subclause one word the bill says that environmental delivery plan must identify one or more environmental features likely to be affected, I want to just think check what it is precisely what they are trying to achieve by one more.

If the Government is worried that an environment of delivery plan may be challenged because not all the environmental features are identified, then I do not think this drafting is helpful. It seems to me that if an environmental delivery plan does not identify an environmental feature which is likely to be affected by development, it is potentially a challenge in any case and I do not the language one or more would escape from that risk because the environmental features are the starting point of a environmental delivery plan if one does not correctly identify the environmental features likely to be affected than that environmental delivery plan seems to be by its nature flawed.

So, why the words one or more? There will not be none, or there would be an environmental delivery plan. If there were more than one, it seems to me this that it would be wrong for the environmental delivery plan not to take account and identify those and leaving them outward make it flawed. Amendment 239 is a similar amendment, only in this case it addresses the ways in which the development may give rise to negative effects on the environmental feature.

Knowing and identifying the effects and how they are caused is an essential precondition for successful environmental delivery planning. So, again, the words one or more in respect of the ways in which the effect is likely to be caused seems to me just creating an opportunity for Natural England to leave out relevant aspects of the development and the effects that the amount have upon the environmental feature. That, again, seems to me to be wrong. The bill should not really see the ways in which the effects are likely to be caused rather than are likely to be caused rather than Let me turn to amendment 240 before I finish.

It relates to the sentence that follows, the process of identifying environmental features, the likely effects, and the ways in which that is cause. It says " An environmental delivery plan need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature. " It seems this is another sentence which speaks to the risk and the government's view that EDPs will be challenged if they don't identify every conceivable impact of a development on any conceivable environmental feature.

The drafting should not allow, it goes too far, because technically it will allow the environmental impacts on an environmental feature to be ignored. And the EDP would therefore again be flawed. So what I suggest in the amendment is that the language should say that the environmental impacts on a bimetal features may be ignored if they are not directly related to the development to which the EDP applies. So the objective overall is to say that we know what we want.

We want the environmental features affected by the element all to be identified, we want the likely effects to be identified, and if effects to be identified, and if they are not directly related to the development, and a bimetal impacts don't directly result from the development, that they may be able to be disregarded. And the amendments to hundred 38, 239, 240, are designed to take wording to what I regard as the purpose of this clause. I beg to move amendment to hundred 38.
00:33
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
In clause 55, page 91, 933, leave out "One or more " and insert " The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

" Perhaps I can talk to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps I can talk to my amendments briefly. Can I welcome the government amendments in this group which are in response to the pressures that took place in the pressures that took place in the other place on the bill, and the verdict of significant environment verdict of significant environment regression. By amendment, 240A is a regression. By amendment, 240A is a bit nerdy but pay attention because there will be an examination at the end.

It replaces "May" with "Must. " It must be a protected feature of a It must be a protected feature of a site or a protected species. I think the clauses drafted could result in unintended consequences. For example unintended consequences. For example Natural England might identify a assemblage of species rather than a assemblage of species rather than a single species as the environmental feature covered by the EDP. For feature covered by the EDP. For example, the entire back assemblage of a particular area, I use the word that advisedly.

If this was done, the overall improvement on that feature could be said to occur if half the species in that assemblage were expected to benefit even if one or two of the rarest and most important species in the assemblage were to be driven to local extinction. It would risk this trade-off within a bulk bio species. And would definitely risk that species that are more difficult to make alternative provision for would be sacrificed in exchange for benefits being delivered to the easiest species.

My amendment would require EPs to address species and features individually, not as part of the EDP bulk purchase. Amendment 251A in my name as a separate amendment which raises an issue that has not been raised elsewhere, and it attempts to seek to establish what happens to the habitats that are created by way of compensation under an EDP, in terms of their ongoing protection from then on. It can't be right that compensation created under an EDP, in replacement for species and habitat features which are currently protected to the highest level of protection, and yet the habitat that is there to compensate for them has no level of protection whatsoever.

I am sure that cannot be the right outcome. The moment, the way I read the bill is, after the end date of the EDP, there is no clarity about what the conservation status is. They have been pretty notorious examples of this in the past. The conservation habitats have often been trashed by successive development but it could be by neglect or it could be by land-use change. The extension of the M4, when it was being proposed, we had the distressing consequence there that habitat created in compensation for the road extension was promptly put up for grabs again when the next road extension to place which mercifully was fought.

But the further extension was going to go through the very compensating habitat that had been put in place for the first road extension. I was involved with the creation of the new village of Camborne just outside Cambridge which had compensatory habitat designed into the development. It was developers working very successfully with Natural England and the local wildlife trust and I should declare an interest as a former president of the wildlife trust. The habitat that was created was very valuable for wildlife.

It offset the development impacts. It is much loved by residents but low and behold, 20 years later, East West Rail will go right through one of the major created wildlife sites. That can't be right. We can't be providing conversation that is then up for grabs for end-users to my amendment seeks protection in perpetuity. I can't think of any other length of time that would have any logic to it because the reality is, the sites that are being destroyed or damaged have protection in perpetuity.

So the sites created in compensation for them should have protection in perpetuity. And I must thank the Minister for her interest as she took in this issue at a drop-in session last week. And an undertaking that I had that she would look seriously into what needed to happen on this yet unaddressed issue.
00:39
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, arrives to move my amendment, 250. This is an important clarifying measure which ensures that when Natural England seeks to impose planning conditions as part of an EDP, they must be directly related to developments that fall within the scope of the EDP. The amendment addresses an important point of legal and procedural clarity. Without such a safeguard, as a risk conditions could be sought or imposed on development beyond the defined remit of the EDP which could lead to regulatory uncertainty and potential challenge.

By linking conditions strictly to development within the EDP scope, the amendment protects against regulatory overreach and maintains the principle of proportionality. Ensuring developers only subject to conditions that are relevant, necessary, and reasonable. This is not about restricting environmental protections but rather about ensuring they are applied fairly and transparently. Thereby supporting the credibility of the planning system and maintaining public trust. Returning briefly to Lord Lansley's amendment, children 38, children 39, 240, it was sharpen the focus of EDPs by ensuring all relevant Ryman features are identified.

And the nature of any direct impact is properly addressed. This is not simply a drafting improvement. It is about ensuring the robustness and accountability of the system we have created. I am also grateful to Lady Young for her amendments. These are important improvements in the bill, and I think taken together, the short debate has highlighted that further improvement is still needed in this clause. Despite the government's welcome amendments. I encouragingly. encouragingly.
00:41
00:42
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, thank you to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I will start by moving on behalf of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the government amendment in this group. 246A, 247A and 255B The government has been careful to ensure these flex abilities will only be used when it supports better environmental outcomes which is at the heart of the new approach. Government amendments relate to the use of network measures making it explicit that Natural England can only deliver network measures when they consider it would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question, measures that address the impact of debate locally.

Crucially network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. This would inherently not pass the overall improvements test because the very essence of irreplaceable habitat is that it cannot be replaced elsewhere. I will now turn to the non-government amendments. First two amendments tabled by Lord Lansley, amendment 238, 239, and 240. Would require an EDP to highlight the environmental features which may be affected by development and state of the right mental impacts in the right mental feature would be.

The government has been clear that we wish to use EDPs to take a targeted approach to address the impacts of development on specific environmental features. Under this approach, and EDP could be brought forward that addresses the impact on one or more environmental features, the conservation measures brought forward to address the impact on the identified feature. In response partly to Lord Lansley's questions regarding the wording. This means that any features that are not identified and covered by the EDP would need to be considered and addressed under the existing system.

I do understand the points the noble Lord is making. But the proposed amendment would therefore require EDPs to become pensive in identifying and addressing all the impacts of development on all environmental features. This was never the government's intention as it rolled out a considerable burden to the creation of EDPs. By taking a targeted approach, you will be able to put EDPs in place to address the specific issues that benefit from the strategic approach. It will unlock development and secure better environmental outcomes.

Expanding EDPs in the way proposed by these amendment would result in slowing down delivery and prevent EDPs from being used in a targeted way the government has envisaged. Turning to amendment 240A which seeks to make sure only protected features of protected sites can be covered with environmental delivery plan. I do recognise the intention behind this amendment. And I can assure noble Friend this is already the case stop the drafting of clause 55 subsection two is a closed list setting out the environmental feature identified in an EDP may be the feature of a protected cycle species.

Because this is a closed list, changing it from May to must would not have any effect in practice. We are confident that EDPs could only be brought forward to address impacts on protected sites and protected species. So I hope my noble friend To amendment 251 a also tabled by my Noble Friend Baroness Young would require offshoot insufficient measures. Of course I do agree with my Noble Friend it is absolutely crucial that conservation measures are in place and that is why clause 55 six requires the EDP measures are to be maintained and Natural England will need to do so for as long as is required to ensure that the impacted development is outweighed in line with the overall improvement test and in many cases this may indeed mean measures can be maintained for several decades or in perpetuity.

It might help to clarify the concepts of off-site and on-site used in this context when they're drafted it will not be known exactly where it will be located other than it has to be within that area. For the most part, conservation measures whether off- site or on-site directly relate to the protected feature in question, i.e. The specific site that is being impacted. However, it may sometimes be more appropriate to assess the same feature elsewhere which is why the bill makes the provision for network compensation measures.

As my Noble Friend will be aware following the Government amendments when delivering these measures Natural England is going to be required to show evidence that it is better for the features the local evidence would be with regard to the need to protect the network. However, not all conservation measures will be required in perpetuity, whether they are network measures or local measures it may be that some conservation measures are deemed appropriate on a temporary basis while longer term measures are put in place where there simply is not a scientific or ecological need to maintain these measures in perpetuity, so we do not believe that a one size fits all approach is appropriate and a blanket to keep such measures in place in perpetuity risks placing an unnecessary burden on Natural England and developers that goes far beyond outweigh the impact of development.

Ultimately, this Conservation measures even those that would be more effective at delivering as it would be required under that legislation. On this basis and with the additional assurance around the use of network measures my Noble Friend I hope feels able to withdraw her amendment. Turning now to amendment to 50 tabled by that Noble Lord Roborough in respect of the use of planning conditions as conservation measures, the Government has been clear the planning conditions play an important role in ensuring developers are taking appropriate action to avoid harm advance of further consultation measures being delivered.

These will form part of the draft EDP that is consulted on so that developers are aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise this stuff as drafted the would only allow Natural England to request the condition be imposed on the development it is seeking to rely on the EDP, so it would not the case that Natural England could request planning conditions being imposed on the development that was not seeking to rely on the EDP through a payment of the naturist which is I believe the concern at the heart of the proposed amendment.

With this explanation I hope noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendment. Finally, turning to amendment 266 tabled by the Noble Lord and introduced by the Noble Lady Baroness Parminter, this would require that Natural England could only ring the conservation measures to contribute to significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. Clearly the Noble Lord is not here today but he is aware that myself and the Noble Lord have had discussions that we have introduced Government amendments to clarify and amplify the overall test being clear that the conservation measures and EDP will materially outweigh the impact of the development.

And just on the Natural England judgement call, I just want to make it clear that the Secretary of State can only sign and EDP, they are confident the sign and EDP, they are confident the test will be achieved and it has to be robust to achieve that. In preparing and EDP Natural England will have to include an assessment of the impact of the proposed conservation measures as well as sitting at the views as to without the EDP is capable of meeting the improvement test.

This consideration of measures is a crucial part of the process in preparing and EDP that will be driven by the best available scientific advice and subject to the consultation before this and for the Secretary of State to consider. Introducing the new terms of preparing and EDP is not necessary as a result of the Government amendments the Noble Lady referred to that to clarify the process for Natural England that will go through when developing and EDP but also the key consideration that the state must go through before deciding to actually improve the EDP.

For these reasons, I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.
00:52
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
I am most grateful to the Minister for that very helpful response to that short debate. Can I just say I have enjoyed many of the contributions from that Noble Lady baroness that they reminded me of Ken, of course, in my former constituency. And we have not given up on trying to get East West rail to that corridor. Perhaps we will talk about that of site as we might see in the context of this bill. The Noble Lady I think we learn as we go on doorway that I think I was not clear about this that the intention is that environmental delivery plans once they have identified the development even though it might impact on an environmental feature that environmental feature might not necessarily form part of the environmental delivery plan to be dealt with under the existing habitats and regulations as that is very interesting.

That being the case, however, I want full on it, but we have come back to it, and I think it is still the case that the imminent 239 and 240 about ensuring that the ways in which this is likely to affect that environmental feature should all be included and if they directly relate to the development they should definitely be included and those two and would still have mirrored in terms of drafting and we could maybe talk about that at some point.

But with the hope that we might revisit those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

points I beg leave to withdraw amendment to 38. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn, Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn, amendment 239, not moved, to 90, not moved, 248, not moved. We now come
00:54
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
moved, 248, not moved. We now come to amendment 241 in clause 55, Lord It is beyond a joy to be here at this hour with some of my closest friends. I cannot think of anything better to be doing with myself right now. It is slightly ironic in what I seek to do shortly is to speak nocturnal species that we have, including our magnificent burn I will, and there out there in full of beans. And doing a better job than probably I will be in tackling some of the issues I want to.

Turning to my group I have got to amendments. The first one is 241. In effect, and hopefully it is quite self explanatory, the amendment removes expected species within the scope of EDP and the delivery plan. And I are delighted that and honoured actually that the noble Baroness I do carry enormous regard for has coincided this amendment to. As we know, we have been round the houses many of times today that EDP is an impact assessment that is developed or will in theory one once they have contributed to the pot and the bill states that an EDP must identify with one more species and it may seem especially when I was competent plating putting it down I did think it through carefully why I wanted to put it in, removing species within the scope and my intention is what it will mean that EDP will have to revert to the existing reflections when it comes to species and the reason being when you take the whole of part three rhetoric in recent years this brings a number of concerns.

And this approach would work in all circumstances yet only if you once a day realised it would not because it was in December of last year there was the DEFRA MC LG conference last year that looked at nature and development and they said that one of the three aims of the scheme would be allowing impacts to be dealt with strategically in exchange for a financial payment for strategic actions so that they could proceed more quickly and followed by the key lime project level environmental assessments are limited only to those hams not dealt with strategically.

And in effect this is an admission that the shift to an strategic emphasis does not always work, recognising the impact it has on the species or indeed other environmental features, so right now I ask is the Government therefore in this bill asserting something is possible when only months ago they said it would not be in the consultation? And the second point is specific to species. Surely everyone knows this bit. Most productive species are protected because there are not many left and it is in a consultation status that can only be maintained to the strict detections in place.

Birds for example since 1954 and other wild animals such as bats and dormice under domestic law introduced in the 70s and yes I think as we discussed earlier we touched on there can be end indeed in my personal view there should be a wider debate about what we have in the rules and regulations and what they say and how they best reflect domestic species today. And we should. But that is not the debate here. As I said, these pieces of legislation and the basis of the current provisions and therefore are there for very clear reasons and we should not cast them aside lightly.

And we can't cut-and-paste every , for example, other protected species like foreign owls due to the nature of the species and their attachment to specific sites rather than general habitats, in particular some but species with strong attachment to them and must not be disturbed while the Bono establish territories respond to the same sites every yeah. And my third point is something that I said at second reading which we just touched on might Noble Friend just touched on in the previous group.

Where I find it absolutely bizarre that it is still the one in assessing a site part of the EDP Dean not identify all of the possible environmental impacts of the environment or future as we know in clause 55. Again, I can't believe that they assess the impact but does not need the impact it would have undoubtedly have limited time and my honourable friend did a good job last how is that legally going to be settled when if this bill is enacted as it currently stands and when it is put through the test or are you going to say therefore that the developer should contributor some species that may not be on that site but that some do not need to contribute to a species that would be lost if we do not know it is present we have to know whether the conservation of the species is going to be enhanced if we do not actually understand if there are any populations of the species there in the first place.

For all these reasons, it would be better in my personal view if we simply remove species from the face of the bill. I am not someone that says there is no merit in this approach of interest will find individual planning and EDP and the strategic approach would make sense and we touched earlier on tackling the pollution is one but I do think we have to recognise when it comes to most species this approach outlined in part three is not capable of meeting its own test and enhancing the overall conservation of a species.

If we do not confront that now I think that we will be facing some very difficult challenges ahead. And next the Second Amendment is this group in 255 and it links to the one I have just been speaking to. I very grateful to the support of Noble Friend Lord Blencathra on the bench and the Noble Lady Baroness Ford adding their name. If the Government feels there is not enough ecological expertise to ascertain which species should not be included but it is generally accepted that the approach would not be right for all species then why don't we commission the DEFRA agency to make such assessments to provide us with a assessments to provide us with a I do think we have to recognise them becomes the most protected species, they are not capable of reaching their own test.

If we don't confront that now, I do think we will be facing some difficult challenges ahead. Next, the Second Amendment in this group is 255 and it links to the one I have just been speaking to. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend on the frontbench and the noble Lady Baroness Willis for adding their names. If the government feels there is not enough ecological expertise to ascertain which species should not be included, it is generally accepted that the approach would not be right for all species, then why are we committing an agency tasked with such assessments to define -- provide a definitive list.

That body was through the JNCC, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I cannot help but feel that the JNCC seem to be forgotten or omitted either by mistake or on purpose. And look for where the G -- JNCC is mentioned, they only get one brief mention and are cast aside. An exercise which involves a major change to species to protect legislation, it is the JNCC that should be given that leading role. It slightly echoes what Lord Roborough was saying about the role of the JNCC can and should have in this process.

Their role is currently to advise the UK and devolved administration with regards to nature and award nature protections across the UK and ensure that we are complying with international obligations. They are the body that is responsible for five yearly reviews of which species five yearly reviews of which species should be listed as protected and, given the provisions on species protection in the wildlife and country high -- countryside act, I find it a little bit extraordinary that the government is taking the prior -- party to not consult on such matters.

Amendment 255 consult on such matters. Amendment 2556 to correct that oversight and re- establishes an appropriate role for the JNCC in line with making them produce a list of protected species not suitable for inclusion because it will be unlikely to enhance their conservation status. Many have made the point that the bill gives enormous powers to when and where to introduce and EDP, what it should and should not cover, how much should be charged for each species, collecting the funds and then having the powers of compulsory purchase and responsibility for delivering everything.

Many have already commented on the motives and incentives. Are we just asking them to do a little too much? Wouldn't it be better if we can use some of the other advisory bodies to help notwithstanding what has been in the papers earlier today. Wouldn't it be better to spread that burden to address the problem of a conflict of interest with Natural England? There is precedent in what the bill is seeking to do and what is already in legislation.

It relates to legislation. It relates to considerations of overriding public interest. If it is deemed to be a priority, what are the steps before priority, what are the steps before proceeding to large infrastructure and products on protected site and and products on protected site and which is the body... It is the tree which is the body... It is the tree -- JNCC. I hope with this amendment we give reassurance to the people in the country who are concerned about the country who are concerned about some of the rhetoric heard when species are singled out for attack.

species are singled out for attack. It provides Natural England and the government with parameters to work government with parameters to work with, strengthen the basis for a with, strengthen the basis for a EDP, and where it would be deemed unlawful. With that, I beg to move. unlawful. With that, I beg to move.
01:06
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed in clause 55, page 69291, leave out paragraph B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we should keep species out of the EDPs. There will be a report published next week that shows the modelling of the EDP shows the modelling of the EDP approach to a whole range of species and its topline conclusion. I am not allowed to tell you more about it because it hasn't been published because it hasn't been published yet. It's that the evidence is incomplete or actively to the contrary that and EDP approach will contrary that and EDP approach will be the best protection for a be the best protection for a species.

This is along the same lines as Amendment 242 a which we lines as Amendment 242 a which we debated last Thursday, and also took debated last Thursday, and also took species out of EDPs. There is another reason we should think seriously about which species should be covered. Several species are be covered. Several species are already covered by private sector schemes overseen by natural England such as the district licensing scheme for newts. The new licensing scheme works across 70 local scheme works across 70 local authorities and delivers local results for freshwater pond conservation.

It has enabled faster conservation. It has enabled faster delivery of 30,000 houses over 100 infrastructure screams and 281 network rail projects since being established. If we have schemes like that funded by private X -- enterprise, we should build on them. Several of the providers of these schemes are going to have their legs knocked out from under them as a result of Natural England taking over. This has had a chilling effect on private sector investment in the schemes.

There is a calculation the government has deemed that these government has deemed that these markets are essential to closing the markets are essential to closing the £3 billion funding gap. We seem to specialise in funding gaps. This specialise in funding gaps. This will be essential in closing the funding gap needed for nature recovery. It would be a poor signal recovery. It would be a poor signal to put these private nature markets that would be threatened by EDPs that would be threatened by EDPs being substituted before them.

It would be a bad signal to the development process if these development process if these schemes, having been set up, having had investors and some success probably have the legs pulled out probably have the legs pulled out from underneath them. So I do hope that ministers will bear this in mind when thinking about the various amendments that talk about taking species out of the EDP process.
01:08
01:09
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
talking about the protected feature and protected species. When one and protected species. When one looks at the definition in clause looks at the definition in clause 92, if one was to take out protected species from close 55, it would take out species listed in schedules two, four and five of the habitat regulations and those protected regulations and those protected under part one of wildlife and countryside act and the protection countryside act and the protection of badgers act. It does not take species at altogether because if a protected site has a protected protected site has a protected feature, which can mean any habitat or species for assemblage of habitats and species, which was the habitats and species, which was the point that the noble Lady made in the previous group.

That can give the previous group. That can give rise, can be part of the process of giving rise to it being designated giving rise to it being designated as a European site et cetera, so the species may still be in by virtue of species may still be in by virtue of them falling under that protective feature. One has to be clear what one is keeping in and taking out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one is keeping in and taking out. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 241 and 255, tabled by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and I congratulate him on a knowledgeable speech. Protected species should not be included in an environmental delivery plan if it is believed that their inclusion is unlikely to contribute to an overall improvement in country -- conservation status. And we listed species whose recovery would not be improved, and indeed, their survival of the species will be endangered.

I cannot remember what our it was, but no doubt my noble friend will remind me. The amendment calls for the joint and conservation committee to publish a list is this -- a list of species included in EDP. I want to say about that JNCC because not many people know about that. It is a superb organisation covering the four countries of the United Kingdom. It is not an arm's-length body, and whilst my noble friend makes a good point about his expertise and I do as well, I am not sure how it could be involved in this bill.

There is no organisation better at writing up a list of what are the Endangered Species Act, as my noble friend said. The JNCC review is absolutely vital listing species which are in danger or on the red list and need more protection. I have said that Natural England has some experts but JNCC has even more. I have a wonderful memory of when officials came back from their first ever British only making of... They came back in high excitement saying they couldn't believe it.

Now that they were speaking on their own, every country in the world wanted to talk to the Brits because they recognise the Brits and the JNCC delegation were the top experts who had been silenced in the past. So I put that plug in because there probably be no other opportunity to say what a wonderful four country organisation it is. The conservation of species is more important than ever as the effects of climate change and destruction of habitat for a our environment.

So I think my noble environment. So I think my noble friend for his amendments and hope the government will for them the necessary attention. Finally, my comment on the points made by the noble Baroness Young of Old Scone. She is right to worry about the destruction of private nature destruction of private nature markets if some of the EDPs go through. The private nature market through. The private nature market has been building up nicely and that gain is concerned and on the new gain is concerned and on the new operation.

Politicians often want to talk about houses being stopped by talk about houses being stopped by newts. There is no problem now. newts. There is no problem now. Housing is not held back because of newts. The Baronesses right, there newts. The Baronesses right, there is a growing nature market which EDPs could destroy. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
01:13
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne for amendments concerning the inclusion of protected species in environmental delivery plans. And also for his clear and comprehensive introduction. The government completely agrees that protected species should only be an environmental feature of an EDP when this occurs positive outcomes for the species, and that is what is going to be achieved through the overall improvement test. Amendment 241 would entirely exclude protected species from the scope of the nature fund.

Existing schemes like the one mentioned by my noble friend Baroness Young, district level licensing for great crested newts have stern action that strategic strategies have shown positive outcomes for some species. We are not saying you cannot build on such schemes, but at the same time, it would not be desirable to remove the opportunity for EDPs to address the impact of development on protected species. In forward EDPs, Natural England will be led by science and the ability of conservation measures to address the impact of development on species.

Where this is possible and an EDP can satisfy the overall improvement test, it is right that an EDP should be able to be brought forward. Can I reassure the noble Lord Gascoigne that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has not been forgotten. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, I met recently with the JNCC to discuss various issues because they are an important organisation with lots of information. The amendment 255 which require the JNCC to publish a list of species that are not suitable for inclusion in EDP.

We do not believe this is necessary because the process of EDP creation will exclude
01:16
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
species not suited to EDPs put to it crucially on a case-by-case basis. crucially on a case-by-case basis. This allows more nuanced consideration of the circumstances and the latest evidence. In and the latest evidence. In comparison, an upfront static list of excluded species is to region? of excluded species is to region? Rigid and would not account for the fact that local circumstances differ and conservation measures may involve and improve. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley for the points he made.

And as I set out during an earlier debate, in addition to the overall debate, in addition to the overall improvement test, the government has tabled supportive amendments that provide further safeguards for how provide further safeguards for how EDPs will operate in practice and deliver the necessary environmental deliver the necessary environmental I am always pleased to hear from my two favourite Ministers in the Frontbench and I respect we have discerned that point I am sorry to do this but I still am not entirely confident that perhaps me or many confident that perhaps me or many others have got the answers we need and I think there probably needs to and I think there probably needs to be a solution that ultimately it is a test of the Secretary of State for Housing rather than within DEFRA.

Housing rather than within DEFRA. Also the evidence is purely natural? I think there are some bits we can probably tease out, there is still some language in the bill from the past group where, forgive me, I would not take it personally as the Government is going to do everything

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and I am very grateful. Is ideologically pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn, amendment 242 in the name of Earl Russell. Not moved. This
01:18
01:18
01:18
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to speak to my amendment, 254. The arguments that I wish to put forward in support of that are similar to those that I put to your Lordships in support of my amendment 147. I do not need to repeat them at length, not only because of the late hour. I am not certain that the environmental delivery plans are the right answer. Neither am I confident that Natural England are currently well equipped to take responsibility for EVP's.

I share the concerns of my Noble Friends Lady Coffey and Lord Fuller expressed during earlier debates today. Does the Minister remember that it was Natural England which objected to his own planning application at the Peninsula to application at the Peninsula to years ago? I all EDP's it is certain that chalk streams must qualify as protected sites under section 55. The noble Baroness the Minister was so supportive of the chalk stream strategy two years ago when we debated the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act.

I am grateful that she said on Thursday that she will write to me to tell me how the Government intends to respond to the requests from the petitions committee for an updated response to the petition. Don't abandon the chalk stream recovery packed. However, on Thursday, she seemed rather dismissive of the chalk stream recovery packed on the grounds that it is now out of step with the government's ambitious program of water reforms. However, organisations such as the rivers trust and the Wildlife Trusts while they acknowledge that there has been positive progress on a small number of areas, they believe there are still many actions were progress has still many actions were progress has been lacking and a large number of chalk streams where status is stagnant or, in some cases, declining.

The latest framework directive cycle three data for chalk streams reports that most up-to-date status for recent years. This is an update for what the original chalk stream representation strategy was. We have derived a list of 312 chalk stream water bodies have been agreed with the EA and those 83% failed to meet good ecological status, 42% failed to meet WFP standards for phosphate, 34% failed to support good ecological status for flow, so with only 17% of chalk stream water bodies achieving high or good status under WFP directives in both 2015 and 2022, it is clear that current action to protect chalk streams is inadequate and things are not improving, in fact in many cases conditions are getting worse with at least 40% of chalk stream water bodies declining and at least one of the WFP elements that defines ecological status between 2015 and 2022.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act act paved the way for the protection of talk streams within the new environmental assessment regime through inclusion in environmental outcome reports. Regulations yet to be made by the Secretary of State will specify outcomes relating to issues such as air-quality and biodiversity. The act cited as an example the protection of talk streams from obstruction and pollution. Although this is a promising development we would like to see the Government confirm that it intends to set explicit outcomes for the protection of talk streams.

Cut the Minister confirm that they will do that? Very briefly, I would also speak to amendment 355 in my name. I do not understand why it was not grouped with 354 in the same way that amendments 146 and 147 were debated together. Amendment 355 3556 to ensure that chalk streams must be included in the definitions of protected sites. I will not repeat the arguments now at this late hour. This amendment also seeks to grant the same protection to blanket bogs which are extensively found across the northern hemisphere and especially in Scotland and Ireland.

They play and important role in water purification, flood control, and support for unique biodiversity. I do not bracket them absolutely with chalk streams, but both should generally be included within the definitions of protected sites for the purposes of part three of the bill.
01:24
01:25
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I will keep my remarks brief as we have already had a constructive discussion on these matters during a previous stage of the committee, but I do think that this amendments piece to the ongoing concerns about the environmental implications of EDPs. We keep coming up against it that we are not convinced that the protections are going to be there and I do very much welcome this group of amendments tabled by my Noble Friend and a Noble Lord Russell. They speak to a shared understanding across the House that certain natural assets such as chalk streams deserve particular attention in the planning system, chalk streams as has been rightly said her rare and ecologically significant and their protection is not a matter of sentiment but a strategic environmental importance.

These members rightly seek to ensure that such assets do not overlook the name of progress, the development can and must go hand-in-hand, planning must go hand-in-hand, planning frameworks should reflect that balance and I bring my remarks to a close there and I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Noble Lady Baroness Parminter in for so ably introducing the noble Lords introducing the noble Lords amendment to 42 and the Noble Lord for amendments to 54 and 355. These amendments are related to the protection of chalk streams, so I will therefore consider them will therefore consider them together. Amendment 242 tabled by the Noble Lord Earl Russell seeks to prevent an irreplaceable habitat for prevent an irreplaceable habitat for being an environmental feature and I being an environmental feature and I want to begin by stressing the importance of irreplaceable habitats importance of irreplaceable habitats and the benefit they bring furniture.

It is really important that this is properly recognised and because of that irreplaceable habitats are not protected by the natural running policy framework natural running policy framework that includes a strong presumption against permitting development that would harm habitats and I do want to would harm habitats and I do want to remain noble Lords that the National Planning Policy Framework is a Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework, so it does have clout. And it is clear that local clout. And it is clear that local plans should identify, map, and safeguard this and wider ecological networks such as the peaceful habitats.

It is significant harm to biodiversity resulting from this cannot be avoided, mitigated, or compensated for, planning commission Obligations under the National Planning Policy Framework are not the obligations that can be discharged through the Nature Restoration Fund. I can be absolutely clear that this bill does not affect the existing MP p.m. Protections. In rare instances where despite the very high bar set development impacting the habitat is proposed, such impacts could only be addressed through an ADP in the habitat in question is also a feature of the site protected under the conservation of species regulations 2017 at the wildlife and countryside act 1981 and if the proposed conservation measures satisfy the approval test.

Because irreplaceable habitats are just that. They are irreplaceable stop it therefore follows that the
01:28
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
irreplaceable habitat cannot be recreated or offset once lost, and so the overall improvement test so the overall improvement test could not be met when an irreplaceable habitat was damaged in irreplaceable habitat was damaged in this way. The important points have been made by the noble Lords and serve to highlight the important serve to highlight the important role of the overall improvement as it plays and ensuring that environmental delivery is deployed appropriately and where there are appropriately and where there are benefits to nature and that is why the Government tabled amendments to clarify this test.

I now turn to clarify this test. I now turn to amendment 355 that seeks to look at the chalk streams as protected sites for the purposes of the Nature Restoration Fund. Amendment 245, Restoration Fund. Amendment 245, 244, tabled by the Noble Lord gives firm in seeking to designate all firm in seeking to designate all chalk streams as protected sites. As has previously been set out, the has previously been set out, the purpose of the naturist fund is to provide an alternative route to discharging the environmental obligations that otherwise the developers in relation to protected developers in relation to protected sites.

Should additional sites require this through designation there is an existing process taking there is an existing process taking place. Where there is a question over the designation of sites we believe this should be addressed through this existing process. There are of course wider actions being taken to support these habitats in relation to chalk streams in particular I note these are already protected as habitats in principle importance and the Government is working to increase the protection of talk streams through measures like the water restoration fund and the environment improved full fund.

And alongside this we directly estimate projects that will improve chalk streams, including £1.8 million investment through the locally led chalk stream clean-up projects. And more, water companies are going to invest £2 million over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream reservation as well as our Plan for Change. Chalk streams our Plan for Change. Chalk streams are also specifically referenced in the definitions of natural environment and environmental protection for the new system of environmental outcomes are reports of the Government intends to produce.

This will ensure the protection of chalk streams is taken into account as part of the new approach to environmental The government is working to increase the protection of chalk streams through the restoration fund and the water wildlife improvement fund. We are investing in projects that will improve chalk streams including £1.8 million through the locally led chalk stream clean-up projects. And water companies are also going to invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions as part of our Plan for Change.

Chalk streams are also referenced in the streams are also referenced in the definitions of environment and environmental protection for the new system environmental outcome reports that the government intends to that the government intends to introduce. This will ensure that introduce. This will ensure that protection of chalk streams is taken into account as part of environmental assessments. They environmental assessments. They should also be safeguarded through plans. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that plans should Framework is clear that plans should identify and safeguard wildlife habitats and ecological networks such as chalk streams as they are such as chalk streams as they are priority habitats.

The government is actively working to enhance actively working to enhance protection including measures such as the water improvement fund as I just mentioned. With this just mentioned. With this explanation, I hope global -- noble Lords will feel willing to withdraw their amendments.
01:32
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page