Lords Chamber

Monday 24th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
14:37
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
work by the Wheelchairs Alliance in the all party group on wheelchairs would suggest that if you leave this to UN bodies and local authorities, they simply will not improve the current inadequate and improve the current inadequate and patchy service. My Lords, the all party group on Access to Community Equipment, have reported that 63% Equipment, have reported that 63% of carers and 55% of equipment users, saying that services are getting worse. Someone else could I ask my noble friend, given what she said about the quality framework, said about the quality framework, which I very much welcome? Does she accept that nothing will change accept that nothing will change unless this is enforced from the centre with strong performance management? management? I do accept the observations that my noble friend has made, and I know he's been a voice on this for many years, and I share with him the impatience for change and welcome the work of the APPG and the Wheelchair Alliance.

What I would say to him is that the NHS Medium Term Planning Framework, Medium Term Planning Framework, which was published just in October, does require that from 20 2627, all does require that from 20 2627, all icbs and community health services must actively manage and reduce the must actively manage and reduce the proportion of whites across all community health services over 18 weeks and develop a plan to weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52 week waits. And I would expect that wheelchair would expect that wheelchair provision and services will improve through this, as well as other means.

means. My Lord, my Lord, my Lords. statistics in relation to people that have to stay in hospital and avoiding discharge because of the length of time taken to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wheelchairs. I would be pleased to write to the noble Lady about the specific the noble Lady about the specific data that's available. But of course, we do know that because of issues to do with Aids and adaptations, sometimes people's people leaving hospital is not as people leaving hospital is not as timely as it should be. That is not in their interests. And certainly in their interests. And certainly we do expect local authorities, for example, to have a statutory duty to make arrangements to do so, and to make arrangements to do so, and also for ICBs to make the provision.

So there aren't the hold ups that
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Well, this is a very important point, including about, in fact, the supply chain and also the technology that that there is, and particularly if we're thinking about those with more complex needs, about those with more complex needs, the wheelchair has to support and meet those complex needs. We do know there's a lack of investment in new models, and we do know that there's been disruption in the there's been disruption in the supply chain. And whilst I don't seek to blame it, that was a particular issue arising out of the particular issue arising out of the pandemic.

So we are indeed working pandemic. So we are indeed working on better technology in terms of wheelchairs and other aids and adaptations, and also seeking to adaptations, and also seeking to iron out where there are difficulties in people making bids for contracts. But if the noble Lord has particular examples, I'd be very pleased to hear about them. My Lords, is my noble friend able to comment on the problem which carers often report of being unable to return the wheelchair to its source once it's no longer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needed. My noble friend raises a point that again applies not just to that again applies not just to wheelchairs, but other aids and adaptations. And there is indeed a adaptations. And there is indeed a very considerable issue. We that is a matter for local services, but it a matter for local services, but it is absolutely something that we will work with them on as part of how we improve services, because it how we improve services, because it also includes the safe and timely return.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

return. My Lords, as well as the concerns raised by the noble Lord Lord hunt about NHS wheelchair services. We know that in addition to that, there are over a million wheelchair users of different types
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Improving the scale of research into the causes and treatment of brain tumours Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
-

My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her reply, but I do want to press for more urgency to beat this terrible disease. Brain cancer is now the biggest
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
None Portrait Legislation: Mental Health Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and/or reasons Baroness Merron (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

considered. Question is that the Commons amendments be now considered. As many as are of that opinion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion. Will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one Baroness Merron. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment one with the leave of the House. I will also speak to amendments 2 to 21, including motions 19 A and 19 D. My Lords, it is a pleasure to return this Bill to this House, where I do very much appreciate the support and engagement of noble Lords throughout its passage. Let me turn first to the government amendments.

In the other place, other than the minor and technical amendments which are there for clarification, my Lords, we have clarified duties on NHS bodies to make arrangements regarding advanced choice documents, otherwise known as acds. NHS bodies must actively inform individuals about acds rather than taking a minimal approach. The Bill requires that information and help is provided to people who wish to make a CD through discussion with a suitably qualified person. NHS bodies should consider the advantages of making an ACD within 12 months after discharge, and aim to provide support and additional guidance on these duties will be in the revised code.

My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend Baroness Keeley and the noble Lady Baroness Barker for raising concerns about the unequal application of the Human Rights Act. The government has now made it so that registered private providers delivering section 117 aftercare or inpatient mental health services funded by local authorities or the NHS, are now treated as carrying out public functions under the Human Rights Act and Act Compatibly with the convention rights, and this amendment will apply UK wide.

Turning now to amendments made by this House on police powers, let me thank the noble Lady Baroness May for her constructive engagement and also for establishing the review of the mental health bill when she was Prime Minister, which has brought us to this place today. We have removed amendments made to clause five, which added police and other authorised professionals to sections two, three and five, extending police and other authorised professionals to these sections is inappropriate, a view that is shared by the police.

We have removed clause 50 from the bill, which extended emergency police powers under section one, three five and 136 of the act to other authorised persons. Health and care professionals lack the training, the equipment and the access to rapid backup needed safely to use such powers, and stakeholders are concerned about staff having authority to use reasonable force. A blanket extension of powers to multiple agencies risks confusion and delay in emergencies due to a lack of clarity on who should respond.

My Lords, there are strong views on either side of this issue, and there are situations where health professionals feel they do not have the powers that they need. That is why I am announcing longer term plans to launch a consultation into emergency police powers of detention. We will consult to look at the powers available to different professionals in different situations and settings in particular, but not limited to looking at the operation of sections one, three, five and 136.

Emergency powers. The consultation will seek views on powers and joint working approaches to ensure that health and social care professionals and police have the appropriate powers in order to to act in order to prevent people from harm to themselves and to others when in a mental health crisis. We do firmly believe that this is the right approach to a complex issue that requires careful consideration and consultation. My Lords, turning to community treatment orders, clause six, paragraph three has been removed from the bill as community treatment orders, known as CTOs, already comply with the code and have an initial six month period.

The responsible clinician may renew a CTO if there is a risk of serious harm. Without it, and reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. Following positive engagement with the noble Lord Lord Scriven and the noble Lady Baroness Tyler, I can confirm the government will review the statutory forms which relate to CTOs, with the aim of strengthening them to ensure a clear audit trail of the reasons for applying a CTO and associated conditions. Regulations will require statutory care and treatment plans, specify any CTO conditions and their justifications, which will also be clarified in the code.

We will work with the Tribunal Service and the judiciary to ensure the patient's plan is considered, alongside other evidence at tribunal hearings. We will clarify in the code that where the tribunal recommends, the responsible clinician reconsiders CTO conditions as they don't consider them necessary, the responsible clinician should review and potentially revise these conditions. Those conditions. The code will set out that the responsible clinician should inform the patient of their decision. After considering the tribunal's recommendation, which should be recorded in writing.

We will engage on the code before publication and involve Lord Scriven and Baroness Tyler in the process. As the tribunal is responsible for considering all relevant evidence. This may include recent recommendations made at past tribunal hearings regarding the conditions placed on the person, including the detail and rationale of any current conditions. I can confirm that since September 2025, we have increased the quantity and frequency of reporting on racial disparities in key metrics such as detention, CTOs, and length of stay by ethnicity.

Much of this data was previously published annually, but it is now monthly, allowing closer monitoring of progress. The data is publicly available on the Mental Health Act annual dashboard, and, along with implementation of the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework, will be used by CQC. The Care Quality Commission as part of their inspection regime. Turning now to the debriefing amendment, I thank the noble Lords, Earl Howe and Lord Cromwell for their constructive engagement. We have removed clause 35, which required independent mental health advocates to consult people about their inpatient experience after discharge.

This removes policy duplication and additional strain on advocacy services whose focus is supporting detained patients rights. The code will clarify the processes of care planning, supporting someone to make an advanced choice document should include the opportunity to reflect on past experiences, and the ten year health plan commits to making patient feedback central to quality improvement. And finally, my Lords, the government has tabled amendments in lieu regarding the appointment of a nominated person for a child under 16 who lacks competence.

And I am most grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Berridge for her continued work on this. The bill now states that an approved mental health professional, or AMP, must appoint either a person who has parental responsibility, a person named in a Child Arrangements Order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live, or a person who is a special guardian. If there is no suitable person willing to act. The AMP must consider the child's wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint.

Turning now to the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Berridge, to the government's motion, I understand the intention to prevent a parent who has had parental responsibility limited from being appointed as a nominated person by an amp, where a child lacks competence to make the appointment the amendment tabled would mean a special guardian or person named under a child arrangement order. As someone with whom the child must live, must be appointed. It is not appropriate for legislation that a particular individual must always be appointed nominated person, if they are not able or even willing to perform the role effectively, then requiring them to take this role and ruling out other options risks harming the child's interests.

Legislation, my Lords, as we know, can be a blunt tool. It is far more appropriate to set out nuances like this in statutory code to ensure the child's individual needs are considered. That is why we previously agreed to set up an expert taskforce to consider these very complexities. Part of this role includes ensuring clear guidance is given to Amps on who to appoint in a range of scenarios to avoid unintended consequences. My Lords, at this late stage, in order to get this right, we should not be hurriedly working through these complexities as a part of the legislation, but should develop detailed guidance and consultation with professionals and patients through drafting the Code of practice.

I therefore ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. My Lords. In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will support our position and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pass the legislation without amendment. I beg to move. The question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. Is that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment one. My Lords, I. Rise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to. Speak to amendment 19 in my name, and I want to thank the noble Lady, the Minister and her officials for the frequency of their engagement on this bill. And I want to put on on this bill. And I want to put on record my apology for not spotting possible issues with the government's motion much earlier, government's motion much earlier, when to which I have laid the amendment. And I do thank the noble Lady and her officials for meeting with the approved mental health with the approved mental health practitioners, which are the professional group, often late at night or at a weekend, who are dealing with our sickest children, dealing with our sickest children, who do not have the competency to appoint a nominated person for appoint a nominated person for themselves.

And I specifically recognise the inconvenience to the Bill team. But this matter relates Bill team. But this matter relates to child protection of mentally ill children and has been flagged at every stage since the Wessely review in 2018, when a consultation was suggested. In recent meetings was suggested. In recent meetings with the noble Lady, the Minister, I understood that what was to be achieved was that the appointment achieved was that the appointment of nominated persons would reflect existing court orders made by the
15:45
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Family Court on child protection grounds. The mischief, really that the approved mental health practitioners want to solve is that they do not want to have any they do not want to have any discretion to appoint a nominated person, anybody that is not in accordance with an existing court accordance with an existing court order. This is what they want to see achieved through the mandatory see achieved through the mandatory appointment of the special Guardian in priority to anybody else. The in priority to anybody else.

The rationale being that special guardianship is usually used to avoid care orders, adoption or long avoid care orders, adoption or long term fostering in relation to a care order. I am grateful that His Majesty's Government amended the Bill to mandate that the appointment of the nominated person in those circumstances must be the in those circumstances must be the local authority and the local authority alone. So why does in this bill the same rationale, I would say, applies to special guardians? Why the Children Act is clear that parents, if a special guardianship order is made by the Family Court, only have parental responsibility for things like leaving the jurisdiction for more than three months or surname than three months or surname changes.

It is neutered. Parental responsibility as apparently now the word used. Why? Because the parents. Sometimes it's due to illness or neglect, or sadly, it's because they present a danger to the children themselves. And that is why the authority of the court has limited their parental responsibility. It is, of course, open to a parent to apply for leave to the court, to disapply the special guardianship and regain full parental responsibility. If, say, for instance, they've recovered from an illness. So turning to His Majesty's Government, motion A, B and C are all people who have got parental responsibility.

So what do paragraphs B and C actually add to the government's motion? There is in drafting and I don't know the full significance. There's no or at the end of those those paragraphs. So is that that everybody gets appointed and they must be appointed. It seems rather confusing. There is also not, in the words of the motion, one of the following. It does say if a person is willing. But then there is no priority within A, B, and C, so there's no order of precedence within the motion.

What I had understood also, and I'm afraid to correct the noble Lady, the Minister. It is mandated already in law in section 28 of the Mental Health Act, that when there is a special guardianship order and when there is a child arrangements order, living with there is no discretion. Does it matter the surrounding circumstances? Does it matter whether these people wish it is mandated that they are appointed as the nearest relative in preference to anybody? They are deemed nearest relative in preference to the exclusion of everyone else.

There's no issues that I've been made aware of, of people being unwilling to act as that nearest relative, or that there are different circumstances. If, of course, the AMP is presented with that situation. What is the solution to second guess the court order, or within 24 hours to go to the family court and get the special guardianship Order or the Child Arrangements Order that's to live with amended. And I am assured by Amps that unlike many of the other lists in the county court, you do actually get heard within 24 hours or so because of the urgency.

So I emphasise the amps do not, whether in code or on the face of the bill, want to have any discretion to go behind an order of the court. And if if someone being unwilling to act in the in the noble Lady mentioned also in her letter, there doesn't seem she's now outlined that the child's wishes are taken into account. But if there is no one with parental responsibility willing to act, what is the solution? It doesn't seem to be within the bill, and so I can't quite understand the emphasis now being placed on it.

The reason that, as I understand it, that His Majesty's Government laid the motion was because statutory guidance cannot mandate anything unless it's on the face of the bill. But the question then arises for us to consider is actually the reverse true statutory guidance undo what is on the face of the bill? Does this mean, in practice, that the malevolent parent who's swinging the lead and telling the amp at 3 a.m. in the morning that the very sick daughter has been living with him for three years, and actually the special guardians no longer involved and is now armed with the Mental Health Act to say you have a duty to appoint me.

So His Majesty's Government's motion mandates that if if this person is willing to act, they must be appointed. So to what extent can the Guardian the guidance, undo that? This potentially gives them a hugely significant role back in the child's life that the Family Court deemed they should not have inadvertently, is His Majesty's Government. Whilst seeking to amend and close the loophole opening up such a possibility. And sadly, I view that at the moment the bill is defective.

Hence I laid the amendment to the motion. I recognise it's not appropriate to divide, but we do have to go. We have some time before the bill then has to go back to the Commons to try and sort out. What I'm informed by amps is still confusion, and I do regret that they, the Experts in Children Act and Mental Health Act, did supply an amendment to the noble Lady's department and didn't seem to have had a reply. So I do hope that in response, the noble Lady will be able to reassure me that statutory guidance can do more than I think it can.

But I do think we need to take these final moments with this bill to protect the thankfully small number of children. But in these most vulnerable situations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister and her officials for the interaction her officials for the interaction that they've had and many discussions we've had in relation to the matters posed in the to the matters posed in the amendments that I originally put down to the Bill in relation to powers of police and the possible powers of police and the possible extension of some of those powers to authorised professionals, including healthcare professionals. including healthcare professionals. And I'm also grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister and the government for agreeing to the government for agreeing to the review and consultation in relation to the exercise of powers, not simply those in sections one, three, simply those in sections one, three, five and one, three, six, but but the general exercise of powers between police and healthcare professionals and other authorised professionals.

And I have a number of questions about that review. But
15:51
Baroness May of Maidenhead Portrait Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)
-
-
of questions about that review. But before I come to those questions, I hope the I can crave the indulgence of the House. Just to cite a couple of the examples of what is concerning me in relation to powers, because I think often people go to the sort of situation in which there's a real threat, a risk of violence, or a risk of danger to those who are exercising powers of restraint. But actually there are other issues. And the noble Baroness did, in her opening remarks when she was moving the government motion, refer to the fact that there are indeed some concerns among healthcare professionals, as well as among police, about the exercise of these powers.

So one situation might be if a patient presents to a GP in a mental health evident mental health crisis, the clinician determines an urgent assessment is needed. The patient may be advised to attend hospital voluntarily, but if they are unwilling to do so and there is no other available alternative statutory pathway, then the police will be contacted in order to exercise their powers. Under section 136. It's not that the police are needed, but it's just they're the only person who's got the power at the time.

There isn't necessarily a need to restrain somebody, but they're just the only person who has that power. The other circumstance might arise in an accident and emergency department, where if a patient is identified as requiring hospital admission for mental health care, but if the individual attempts to leave before an approved mental health professional or a second assessing clinician is available or bed is found, then the emergency department staff have no statutory authority to prevent their departure, the individual's departure, and they ring the police for assistance.

And in evidence to the Joint Home Office and DHSC review, which was reported in 2014, there was evidence of this. Doctor Beale said. A police officer has more power in that situation than I do. How can I excuse calling the police to my department to assist in mental health care? We want to reduce the involvement of police and mental health care, not invited. And I am sure we are all agree that we want to ensure the best possible pathway and experience for the person with mental health problems.

We want to reduce the use of police resource and we want to improve the policing of communities because the police officer required to attend unnecessarily a mental health incident a mental health patient is a police officer taken off the policing of their local community. And so my questions are will the review ensure that it also looks at the evidence that was given to the the review that reported in 2014, which, among other things, showed that 93% of paramedics agreed with extending section 1.335 and 136 powers to remove a person to a place of safety, to extending it to other professionals provided they were trained and equipped.

What is the timeline for the review and consultation? I'd like it to be something like six months, at which department will be the department running the review or responsible for the review? I think it should be again, Joint Home Office and DHS see review and what happens at the end if it identifies a need to extend these powers to or add healthcare professionals to the list of authorised professionals, will the government guarantee to undertake that, and what vehicle would they use to do so? So once again, I'm very grateful to the Minister for the discussions we've had, but I would just like to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear on these points. I just. Wish to rise to put on record my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wish to rise to put on record my thanks for the collaborative nature of the noble Lady, the Minister and officials, when discussing the officials, when discussing the issue of community treatment orders. Clearly, this issue came about within the passage of this bill with regards to the balance between mandatory community treatment and mandatory community treatment and deprivation of people's freedom within the community, as well as the issue of the revolving door. the issue of the revolving door.

People who kept seem to be in the revolving door and didn't seem to be able to get off a community be able to get off a community treatment order, and particularly the racial disparity. The the noble Lady of the Minister has moved Lady of the Minister has moved forward, and it really is about that balance between the power of that balance between the power of the individual patient and the clinician. I think and I think
15:56
Lord Scriven Portrait Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
clinician. I think and I think where the government have got to in in discussion is a stop and check for the clinician in terms of really having to think about why the extension of the community treatment order is required, and particularly if the tribunal says that certain conditions of the treatment order shouldn't be established or part of a patient's treatment, then they really have to stop and think and will be mandated through the code of practice to explain why that happens.

And I very much welcome the offer that both myself and the noble. Lady, Tyler are going to be consulted and involved in the re drawing of the code of practice, because it is important within that code of practice that words such as must be down there rather than just the word may, which gives some discretion for the clinician to maybe not write down as significantly as is required when people's liberty or freedom is being is being taken away.

So I again thank the noble Lady and her officials and look forward to getting that balance absolutely correct to stop the revolving door

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we have seen. I stand to thank the noble Lady,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to thank the noble Lady, the Minister and officials and members of the other House in relation to amendment 12, which relation to amendment 12, which will ensure the human rights of patients who are placed in the patients who are placed in the private sector under NHS contracts, something that many of us were concerned about, which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerned about, which is completely resolved with amendment 12. I had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I had. An amendment in the area covered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An amendment in the area covered by amendments 1 to 4 at an earlier stage of the progress of the bill, stage of the progress of the bill, and I just wanted to put on record my thanks to the noble Lady Baroness May of Maidenhead for her tenacious pursuance of this particular issue and the
15:58
15:59
16:00
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
the government and the noble Baroness are to be congratulated in continuing continuing to grapple with the problem, and in particular with the implications of the Children Act. The the Minister's Amendments 19 B and 19 C correctly identify three potential candidates for appointment, but do so without indicating any priority or criteria. Although I do assume that subparagraph five of the schedule will continue to apply to take into account the wishes and feelings of the patient and the age of the person being considered.

But apart from that, the really important point raised by Baroness Berridge is that if there is an extant special Guardian, section 14 C of the Children Act does give that person priority to the exclusion of of the other people in the exercise of parental responsibility. And with respect to the Minister, that's not a question of nuance. It's a matter of law. And that, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would suggest, should be reflected in the bill. I would like to just acknowledge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to just acknowledge the extensive discussions about how the act. Will apply to people with learning disabilities and autistic people. We know that clause three won't be switched on until sufficient community support is in sufficient community support is in place, and developing the right community support is absolutely key to ensure people with learning, to ensure people with learning, disability and autistic people are supported well in the community and not inappropriately detained during Report stage. And the Other place Minister committed to work with people with lived experience and other stakeholders to set out a roadmap for change.

The excellent Lord Singh House of Lords Committee report, Time to Deliver the Autism Act 2009 and the New Autism Strategy was published yesterday, and it also called for a clear timeline and roadmap for strong community services to be put in place so that provisions in the
16:02
Baroness Hollins Portrait Baroness Hollins (Crossbench)
-
-
Mental Health bill to end the unnecessary detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be commenced. Can I ask when the Ministers will begin meeting people with lived experience and stakeholders to to develop the roadmap? And what progress has His Majesty's Government made in determining what sufficient community support is and how this will be assessed, particularly given that there are still well, in October 2000, over 2000 autistic people and people with learning disability in hospital in England, 92% of them being detained under the Mental Health Act, and that, according to NHS digital data, only 19% of local areas have achieved the March 2024 target to reduce the number of inpatients.

So it's just worrying if. And the question really, I suppose, is whether ICBs are on track to meet the next target, the 2026 target of a further 20%

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduction. Briefly, to entirely support my noble. Friend Lady Berridge, and also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend Lady Berridge, and also follow on from the Lord Meston. This is. A really important issue in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A really important issue in relation to my noble friend's amendment, and. I think. It's unfortunate. That this. Issue wasn't put out to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Issue wasn't put out to consultation, because there is clearly a lack of clarity. It would clearly a lack of clarity. It would be OFTOs of me to repeat anything either. Noble Lords have already either. Noble Lords have already said, but I would urge the Minister, and I know she's a very good and I know she's a very good listener, to consider this issue a listener, to consider this issue a little further, given this moment, for the child is so young, person for the child is so young, person is so critical, and I do believe that unless there's clarity and that unless there's clarity and unless it's on the face of the bill, and unless this issue of discretion
16:04
16:05
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
Appellate Committee, the two who dissented in favour of my client were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and the noble and learned Lady Baroness Hale. And I'm very pleased that their approach has now been accepted by Parliament. The point was summarised by lady Hale. She said it is a function of a public nature. For the purposes of the Human Rights Act, when the function is performed pursuant to statutory arrangements, when it's performed at public expense and when it's performed in the public interest.

It's taken 17 years that the law has got there in the end.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, could. I start by adding my thanks to the. Noble Lady, the Minister, for her extremely constructive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her extremely constructive engagement throughout the Bill and particularly. In recent weeks, as we have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In recent weeks, as we have been discussing with her on community treatment orders and with strengthening measures in relation strengthening measures in relation to monitoring. Racial disparities, my noble friend Lord Scriven has my noble friend Lord Scriven has already covered the former, and I simply want to say that I'm very grateful for the steps that the grateful for the steps that the noble Lady has taken to strengthen those measures, but for monitoring, it was, after all, the looking at racial disparities was the underlying rationale for this piece of legislation.

So I'm very glad that we are now going to be having, I think, monthly reporting and I think, monthly reporting and being able to access that through the, the, the, the database and the
16:07
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the, the, the, the database and the dashboard. I think that's very good news. And just to say that on these benches, we will most certainly be scrutinising that data very carefully and drawing any areas of concern to the to the attention of this House, my Lords. Liberal Democrats welcome this bill. It's long overdue as an important step in ensuring people's dignity and human rights. But we also recognise that it comes amidst a very challenging landscape for mental health services more broadly.

We all know the serious shortcomings in the current and current mental health services, and throughout the process of scrutinising this bill in both houses, we have urged the government to back calls to invest in community mental health services and to produce a clear, costed implementation plan with clear timescales. We consider that is very important because our outstanding concern is that this bill on its own, does not include adequate measures to promote preventative and early intervention services to stop people reaching crisis point and all the issues that we have discussed during this passage of the bill.

We've been very glad to contribute to the bill. It does constitute the biggest piece of legislation on mental health in in 40 years. And I guess in the same vein, it could be the case that we don't have another review of major piece of legislation for another 40 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope that's. Not the case. But these bills don't come along very often, and don't come along very often, and that's why we are determined to push the government to look beyond the relatively narrow scope that the relatively narrow scope that this bill has offered to include community led preventative care, rather than simply focusing on rather than simply focusing on helping people as they reach crisis point. It has been a very important point. It has been a very important piece of legislation.

I'd like to thank again the Minister for her extremely constructive engagement and the tone she has set throughout this bill. I'd like to thank all this bill. I'd like to thank all noble Lords, both from these benches, but from all benches, for their extremely well considered and very expert and very heartfelt very expert and very heartfelt contributions. And perhaps last of all, I would like to thank also thank officials, the Bill team and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adam Boyle in the Liberal Democrat whips office. My Lords, can I also start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I also start by thanking the noble Lady Minister, her officials and her special adviser as well for their constructive engagement on this constructive engagement on this bill. The bill has been returned to us from the other place without the amendments made in this House. And amendments made in this House. And obviously I would have preferred if those amendments had remained in the bill. But I understand the government believes that they are not necessary. Firstly, on amendments 1 to 4 and 11, which remove the amendment proposed by my noble friend, Lady Mayor of Maidenhead and tabled by myself and my noble friend Earl Howe at report in on a wider range of people to undertake detention under sections two, three and five under Mental Health Act.

Can I also thank my noble friend, lady May for giving some specific examples of why that was that was called for now, I understand there were two main concerns on these amendments. Firstly, some were concerned about possibly setting a precedent for being detained by personnel who are
16:10
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
not police officers beyond this bill. And secondly, some of the health professionals felt that they health professionals felt that they had not been consulted. And and some of the health professionals who would have been affected by who would have been affected by this change felt they were not properly consulted. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister and her officials for Minister and her officials for suggesting a consultation on whether these powers should be extended. And it's good that we are going way beyond just this and having a wider consultation.

The other amendments. Amendment six, other amendments. Amendment six, which removes clause 35 from the bill. Now this was inserted after a successful division report and moved by my noble friend Earl Howe, to ensure that those who are detained and given treatment for detained and given treatment for their mental health receive a proper debriefing after their discharge. So also the system can discharge. So also the system can learn and not make the same mistakes. Now, my noble friend did mention the experiences of young mention the experiences of young people who felt they were not being listened to, but.

During our meeting, the noble Lady, the Minister, she agreed to outline Dispatch Box how the government will ensure that more is done to will ensure that more is done to listen. So we are we do welcome the assurances given by the noble Lady, the Minister, the other questions the Minister, the other questions that we did raise were the issues of the the patients having a right to make an advanced choice document. Of course, we would have preferred it was once again on the face of the bill.

But we understand that the amendments Shem to ten are a step in the right direction. And in fact, the government has said that the work there is not really that much difference in practice between the wording in the bill and the alternative wording that we suggested. So once again, I do welcome those assurances, but really we will we will pay close attention to make sure that the ICBs and trust are making people who should have have a right to be aware that they do have that right.

And I think it's something that all noble Lords or many noble Lords agree on, on my noble friend Lady Berridge's motion 19 D I understand that my noble friend had some concerns which my noble friend was able to share with the chamber, supported by other noble Lords. I really one was obviously on the use of the word or, and there's some difference. There's some debate about whether you actually need the word or on the face of a bill to imply the word, or I'm not a legal expert, but but I hope that some assurance could be given there.

But also, I hope some of the other issues that my noble friend mentioned can be resolved in further discussions between my noble friend and the department, and possibly to see if this can be resolved either in the code of practice or in specific guidance, but also in discussions with the the relevant health professionals who have raised the concerns with my noble friend Baroness Berridge. So also on the one of the issues that I raise a number of times and thank my I thank the noble Lords from the Lib Dem benches, but for this issue was raising the issue of racial disparities.

You know, we've been speaking about racial disparities for far too long and for far too long we've been given the answer. It's too complicated. Or, you know, it's much more data is much more granular than you think. I do welcome the fact that the debate data will be published on a more frequent level, so more with more frequency. But I do hope that we really do take that data and we make changes based on the evidence in that data. So we're not looking at anecdotes or people's prejudices, but we're actually tackling the real problem for far too long, too many people of Afro-Caribbean descent have been detained, and no one has really got to the crux of the matter.

And I hope and I know this is this is an issue that noble Lords from all benches agree that we really need to really hone in on this issue and really tackle it. Given all that, can I once again thank the noble Lady, the Minister, her officials, her special adviser and others for the constructive approach, but also thank all noble Lords from all benches. I felt many of us said there was not. It wasn't a particularly political bill. It was an issue that we just wanted to get right.

And given as the noble Lady, as tireless said that this issue does come up, doesn't come up often, frequently enough, and maybe it might be another 10 or 20 years before we discuss this issue and things move on, and we are more aware of issues, and we understand some of these conditions in more detail. I really do thank all noble Lords for the way that we all work together in a very constructive way, along with the Minister, and hopefully that we can now ensure that this bill makes its way onto

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the statute book. Thank. My Lords. Let me thank noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Let me thank noble Lords for the thank yous and the appreciation for the whole team. And the whole team is, as noble Lords said, extensive. And also, I Lords said, extensive. And also, I appreciate the welcome for the numbers of improvements that we numbers of improvements that we have made to this bill by being able to work together. And I'm grateful to noble Lords, as I said at the outset, for their at the outset, for their contribution, we have made significant progress on this Bill significant progress on this Bill and the discussions even today.

And the amendments, in my view, reflect the amendments, in my view, reflect the very complexity of these reforms and the shared determination also to deliver determination also to deliver legislation that will make a real difference. I will seek to address
16:15
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
difference. I will seek to address some of the points that have been raised by peers. As always, I'm very happy to pick up points outside of the chamber, but perhaps I can turn to some of the points raised by the noble Lady. Baroness Berridge. First of all, the noble Lady asked about strong requirements for local authorities rather than special guardians, and I can say that stakeholders, including the Children's Commissioner's office, agreed the main priority should be whether the child is under a care order, i.e.

the local authority has parental responsibility and this should be considered under a separate tier to a special guardian or child arrangements order. I want to pick up the point now about the reference to the word open inverted commas or close inverted commas, which the noble Lady Baroness Berridge Berridge raised, and also the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about why there is no or in the no use of the word, or in the legislative drafting. On this point by I am advised that by default the absence of and or on the page means, or as a matter of drafting the modern style is to stay to say and and and when you mean and but leave open inverted.

I do hope that Lord Meston some of his colleagues Lord Pannick can assist. And I'm going to start that sentence again. My Lords, the monster is to is to say, and when you mean and but leave or silent. If the latter is what's intended, we are. This is the key point. We are clear. It must be a single person who is appointed. On the issue. The noble Lady Baroness Berridge raised about the creation of a hierarchy. We simply don't agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should be always blocked from being a nominated person as the child arrangement, order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child.

We do, however, agree with the general principle that the AMP should be aware of and consider the implications of any child arrangement, order or special guardianship, and in most cases it is true they will still appoint those those people to be the nominated person rather than the person with residual parental responsibility. It is the. It is considered that having at that allowing flexibility does allow judgements to be taken on a case by case basis, taking into consideration specific circumstances and what is most appropriate for the child or young person, rather than a blanket exclusion.

I can say to the noble Lady in your Lordships' House, we will provide clear guidance in the code following consultation and engagement with experts and professionals, and that will allow, I hope, a way forward to deal with the complexity. I should also to a further point, the noble Lady raise raised about malevolent intent that a parent may have. I would stress that if the later finds that the special guardian will be a more suitable person than the legislation does, allow them to terminate the appointment of the nominated person and appoint the special guardian instead.

If there are any outstanding issues I haven't covered, either in my speech or in this response, I'll be very happy to discuss those with the noble Lady, as I have continued to do. As I said earlier to noble Lords, I do believe that this discussion, the questions, the amendment all show the complexity that we are all seeking to resolve to the noble Lady, Baroness May, who asked a number of points about the consultation. My department will lead the consultation and we will be working closely with the Home Office.

We will also be working with the Home Office and stakeholders to scope the consultation. Whilst I can't give an exact timeline for the review and I'm sorry to be unable to do so, but I again can say before launching the consultation, we are going to be working closely with the Home Office, the NHS, social care colleagues and the police to consider the options to consult on that support better outcomes for patients and the services. And and I will be pleased to set out further details on the timetable in due course.

The noble Lady Baroness May also asked what happened at the end of the review. I'm sure the noble Lady will understand that. I don't want to pre-empt the outcome of the process. However, on a future vehicle to implement the review. Whilst we obviously can't commit to a legislative means to do that, we will be taking forward the consultation results and outcomes when parliamentary time allows and I'll be pleased to keep the noble Lady updated on all of these developments.

The noble Lady, Baroness Hollins, asked about my colleague, Minister Stephen Kinnock MP, who did a sterling job in taking through this legislation in the other place. And the noble Lady asked about working about his work with lived experience groups. So I should say to your Lordships' House and to the noble Lady in particular, after Royal Assent, our first priority will be to draft and to consult on the code of practice, and we will be engaging with people with lived experience, their families, their carers, and with staff and professional groups and commissioners, providers and others to do this, alongside launching a public consultation.

And the code will be laid before Parliament before final publication. We do realistically expect this process will take at least a year, but it's so important because of the nature of our discussions that we do get this right. And the noble Lady, Baroness Tyler asked about confirmation. Confirmation on an implementation timeline. And of course, legislation is important. Implementation is what delivers the results. And we do estimate, as the noble Lady has heard me say, full implementation will take around ten years.

It doesn't mean we wait ten years, but full implementation will take around ten years. Again, being realistic due to the time needed to train the workforce and the need to ensure the right community support is available, and noble Lords will be aware that this timeframe necessarily spans multiple spending reviews and multiple parliaments. So we are limited and I hope noble Lords will understand this in the detail that can be given about future spend and timelines. And I quite understand why noble Lords raised this.

My Lords, I do want to again acknowledge the dedication and very thoughtful engagement shown by members of your Lordships' House throughout the passage of this Bill. The amendments made by the government reflect not only technical refinements, but importantly to me, our response to the concerns and insights that were raised by peers, by MPs, by stakeholders and those with lived experience. I believe that those concerns and insights have improved the bill's clarity and effectiveness, and I do hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.

It is thanks to what I regard as exemplary cross-party working that we are now able to be in a position to pass this bill, to pass this bill into law and begin implementation. Because what it is about is it's about bringing positive change as soon as possible. For those whose lives are touched by the legislation we have debated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their do agree with the Commons in their amendment one, as many of that opinion say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment two Baroness Mone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment two Baroness Mone. My Lords, with the leave of this House, with the leave of the House, I beg to move formally that the I beg to move formally that the House to agree with the the Commons, in their amendments. 2 to 17 En bloc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bloc. Question is the House to agree with the Commons in their amendments? 2 to 17 En bloc as many amendments? 2 to 17 En bloc as many of that opinion will say content the contrary not content, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it motion 19 a Baroness Merron move formally. And informally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And informally. The question is the House do disagree with the Commons in their amendments 18 and 19, but do do amendments 18 and 19, but do do propose amendments to 19 B and 19 C in lieu motion 19 D and is an amendment to motion 19 a Baroness Berridge.
16:25
16:26
16:28
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
None Portrait Amendment:A1 Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-

several months ago with this Home Secretary, it would undoubtedly have been accepted. Indeed, I think the government may also have been minded to put their own amendment down, similar to to my own. We can be potentially cynical about the the new policies that have been developed by the Home Secretary. Some might say that they are performative smoke and mirrors and in in the absence of a policy to leave or at least derogate from the ECHR, they will rely on discretionary powers, there will be little deterrent effect, and there were far too many loopholes still in place, even with the new policy.

Or we can believe, my Lords, that it's a genuine and workable programme to tackle uncontrolled immigration. But we will see. But let us take the Home Secretary at her word. One of the key aspects of of her new policy is a new work and study visa route. But as the noble Lord German said at the Report stage, if we can't collect data on student visas and criminality, how can we properly assess risk of abuse of the visa system when the Home Office and universities are obliged to take into account such factors in their decision making? We can we can also can't really pursue a policy, for instance, of visa bans, as mentioned articulated by the Home Secretary of countries which fail to cooperate with returns policies.

If we don't collect all the relevant data in respect, particularly of students. My Lords, this is an issue of openness and transparency. And the noble Lord, the Minister, the noble Lord Lord Lemos, failed to reassure us at Report stage. Indeed, he actually supported the thrust of our argument when he stated, quote, I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord Jackson and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate.

And indeed, as I said earlier, my Lords, the government could have moved their own amendment, but they have chosen not to do so. He also said, My Lords, the Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. More to the point, the noble Lord, the Minister, was unable to address the substantive point made by my noble friend Lord Harper about information collected on the propensity of different nationalities to commit crime, and I understand that he has received a letter from the noble Lord Lemos, and we look forward to a clearer answer to that particular question, and perhaps my noble friend will reference it should he choose to speak in this debate.

Your Lordships' House will be aware that many other jurisdictions do routinely collect, collate and publish this type of data. One example is the immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The Department of Home Affairs in Australia and the United States system. Student and Exchange Visitor Information System all published this data as a matter of routine. So the question is, if we already have this data, why not publish it to enable proper informed debate and a fact and fact based policy making? My Lords Ministers have failed both here and last Wednesday in the other place, to articulate a coherent rationale and for resisting this sensible, practical and helpful amendment to the Bill.

Their arguments, with all due respect, were threadbare, to say the least. Surely the acid test is the answer to two questions. My Lords, will this amendment damage or impede the central premise of this bill? And two, will the amendment help His Majesty's Government develop public policy which is of significant public concern based on real time, robust empirical data for the benefit of the Minister? The answer is no. And yes. My Lords, even now the Minister can accept this amendment and break free of what I described earlier as a very significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation in respect of this data.

If Ministers want to be taken seriously and restore trust in their proposals and policies, they can make a good start in good faith by conceding what is a minor amendment in the great scheme of things. And on that basis, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move this amendment. The original question was that motion A be agreed to? Since then, motion A be agreed to? Since then, motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A leave out from house end and insert. Do insist on this amendment 37 the question therefore, is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to. My Lord. I'd like. To support my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To support my. Noble friend Lord Jackson. In his motion. For several reasons. The first one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The first one. Is that I. Think he set out a very. Compelling case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About why this data should. Both be collected if it's not collected and published, so that we have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and published, so that we have a much. Clearer idea. About the. Nature of. Student visas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Student visas. And again, I didn't hear. Any compelling. Reason when we debated this. At Report stage why that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At Report stage why that shouldn't be the case. And indeed, when I look at what the Minister in the House of Commons said when they
16:36
16:36
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
and so forth, but didn't actually give us a reason about why this give us a reason about why this particular set of data. Well, first of all, he didn't tell us whether it was collected, but he also didn't tell us whether or not it didn't tell us whether or not it was going to be published. And he didn't actually come up with any reasons why my noble friend's reasons why my noble friend's amendment couldn't be accepted. And certainly I don't think at either certainly I don't think at either Report stage or indeed in the House of Commons, did Ministers set out any concerns about the drafting of my noble friend's amendment? So it can't just be that it's okay, can't just be that it's okay, except that it's terribly badly drafted.

And in which case, of course, Ministers could have taken course, Ministers could have taken it away and used the skills of the government's parliamentary draughtsman to have it improved. So that's the first thing. I can't that's the first thing. I can't actually see any reason why we shouldn't accept it. And if the Minister were to suggest that he would be happy to publish it, then I can't see why we shouldn't just have the amendment and put it in have the amendment and put it in place.

Because, you know, this minister's a very fine Minister. We like him very much and he's very like him very much and he's very robust. But of course, he may not be. He may not be the Minister for be. He may not be the Minister for ever. There may be sadly. Well, I don't think it's it's that unfair to say that he may not carry on being the Minister forever. He may not want to be the Minister forever. He's got another piece of legislation to do on borders coming very soon.

And and just because he says that he's going to publish it, I think it would be better if it was in statute so that whichever Minister, whichever Home Secretary is there, we could be sure that this information was going to be published. And there's a reason for that, my Lords, because as my noble friend said, we had quite a debate about this at Report stage two, two different aspects of it. The first one was about specifically data about criminality, but the second one, I raised the issue about what information Ministers collected to make decisions about student visas.

And I, I recollected that when I was immigration Minister serving in the Home Office under the leadership of the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Baroness May, who's sitting in front of me, it was absolutely the case that the Home Office collected data about the propensity of different nationalities to overstay and the risks that were presented, and that information was used both about the information that was sought and the judgements that were made about accepting people to come to the United Kingdom, quite rightly, to make sure that we had robust borders.

When I got the letter from Lord Lemos, as my noble friend suggested after that debate, I'd asked two questions. One was about information that was collected about the propensity of visa applicants to commit crimes, and the second one was risk assessment in student visa decisions. And of course, the second one is the one that's most pertinent to this debate. But they are linked on the first one, the noble Lord, the Minister, answered the question, but it wasn't a very good answer.

And it's why I'm a little sceptical about whatever assurances that we may hear from the Dispatch Box, because, he said, in accordance with the public sector equality duty, the government's policies do not unduly discriminate against people based on their protected characteristics, which includes on the basis of nationality. And he specifically said the Home Office does not collect data about the propensity of different nationalities to commit crimes. So so there's a seems a bit of a gap there about the information that's collected.

So it may be that Ministers will publish information about the numbers of specific individuals. But my question was about whether you then use that information to make judgements about whether particular nationalities are more of a risk, and it doesn't mean you have a blanket ban against people, but it might mean you ask some more searching questions. If particular nationalities are a risk, and it sounds like the government doesn't intend to do that at all. The most worrying thing was that the question I asked about whether the government was still collecting, or what information was collected to do those risk assessments in student visa decisions.

Answer came there none in this letter, which was purportedly an answer to my question. Now, the only conclusion one can come to is that the Minister didn't want to put down the answer, because the answer would be that no information is collected and there is no risk assessment. Now, there definitely used to be a risk assessment. So if there isn't one now I don't know when it stopped, but I think that's very much a step backwards. So for both of those reasons it makes no sense.

The final one on on what the noble Lord, the Minister, said in his reply to me when it said the government doesn't make decisions about people based on their nationality. That doesn't seem to accord with what the Home Secretary announced just last week, when she said that the UK would stop granting visas to people from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. So blanket bans on every individual from those countries, if their governments didn't start rapidly cooperating on removals.

Now, on that particular issue, I happen to agree with the Home Secretary. I think that's a very sensible policy, but it isn't consistent with what the Minister said in his letter, which was about not unduly discriminating against people based on nationality, unless, of course, unduly is doing quite a lot of work, perhaps more than it bears. So I'm a bit sceptical. So if the Minister stands up and says he's going to publish the data that my noble friend says, I would be much happier if that that commitment was put into statute and we needn't delay the bill.

I think we broadly think that we don't think the bill is going to make as much positive difference as the government does, but there's lots in the bill to be welcomed. I don't want to hold it up, but we needn't hold it up at all because the Minister could just accept my noble friend's amendment and then we'd be done. But if he isn't prepared to accept my noble friend's amendment, then I fear we we we must test the opinion of the House. That will ultimately be up to my noble friend.

But I'm certainly based on the the letter that I've had from the Minister, certainly not at this stage at least, persuaded that we don't need to go a little bit further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm the only. Member of this. House who is very often irritated by a Commons very often irritated by a Commons reason in this sort of situation, which says we don't agree because we don't agree on this occasion. We have a reasoned reason with which I, for one, certainly do agree that for one, certainly do agree that it's not appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to be a statutory requirement to publish the data. The there is a publish the data.

The there is a place for something other than statutory requirements. I think statutory requirements. I think this is is one of them. I agree with a couple of things which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, I don't know that anybody ever envies a Minister in the Home Office, and also that, of course, more seriously, that we have largely seriously, that we have largely been overtaken by the announcements that have come from the Home Office
16:43
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that have come from the Home Office in quite a stream since we started work on this bill. It's made it very difficult to deal with the bill, but I also wanted to talk about the amendment itself. It doesn't give a context. It could, for instance, have added that there must be the collation and publication of the number of overseas students who I summarise, have remained in the UK and succeeded in their contribution to the success of the UK.

The data that's referred to gives suggests no comparator with British citizens, and my real objection to this amendment is that I don't want to be appearing to assume that criminals are overrepresented in the overseas student cohort, or, bluntly, that immigrants include a particularly large number of criminals. The starting point for this amendment is one which makes me deeply, deeply uneasy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling this motion A1 that this House do insist on its this House do insist on its amendment 37. The amendment we made to the bill on report has a simple purpose. My noble friend simply purpose. My noble friend simply wishes for the Home Office to publish data on overseas students, and that is a wish I share the reason given by the Other place for disagreeing with our amendment 37 disagreeing with our amendment 37 is that they do not consider it appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish statutory requirement to publish the data listed in the amendment, the release of which should be determined within the wider publication of official statistics publication of official statistics on migration.

I agree with the basic premise here that an amendment to primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to force the publication of statistics. force the publication of statistics. Ideally, we would not have to go down the legislative avenue to get
16:46
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
the Home Office to publish these statistics. However, when my noble friend has repeatedly asked for the government to do so and they still refuse, then this is the option. The only option, indeed, that we are left with. My Lords, there is a very simple solution to all of this. Just publish the data. The Home Office must know how many visas they revoke and how many people they remove from the country. Surely they know how many of those revocations and removals are of foreign students.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend in trying to force the publication of this data, and should he decide to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord Jackson for tabling his amendment, Jackson for tabling his amendment, but I hope that when I rise to speak and move motion A, which speak and move motion A, which relates to amendment 37, I hope I can persuade the House that no division is required. We will see. division is required. We will see. I hope to persuade the House of that in due course. And the Bill returns to this House having been considered in the other place on Wednesday the 19th of November, during which the government's during which the government's amendment to the Lords stages the bill were approved by the elected bill were approved by the elected House of Commons.

As the noble Lord Harper mentioned, and indeed the noble Lord Jackson. Migration noble Lord Jackson. Migration policy is a fluid issue because there are always issues that we're bringing forward. And my noble bringing forward. And my noble friend, the Home Secretary, right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals which I brought forward proposals which I spoke to in this House on Thursday, the 20th of November, and there is the 20th of November, and there is a further statement on legal migration issues tomorrow evening in this House.

If members wish to
16:47
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
in this House. If members wish to participate and hold the government to account still further the bill before us now, my Lords and Lord Jackson of Peterborough amendment 37, as members know, was taken to the other place, having been approved by this House previously. The Other place has rejected that amendment. The amendment would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal Offences.

The number of overseas students who have been deported following revocation of their student visas, and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas. Now, I maintained at the time, and I dare I say it without wishing to provoke the noble Lord to vote, I maintain still that there is no requirement in primary legislation, and it would be unnecessary and would undermine the mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate publication of statistics in full, so that the context of migration statistics already published is known.

I note the view that has been put forward by Liberal Democrat benches in the debate. In the other place, that the amendment would not help tackle organised crime, nor improve border security, nor would it strengthen the bill. As I set out when debating the amendments at both committee and Report stage, the government sees the value in transparency. Hence the vast quantity of statistics that the Home Office already publishes on a regular basis, in line with the statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for statistics.

The Home Office regularly reviews the statistics being published and takes into account a number of factors, including user needs, the resources required to compile the statistics, as well as the quality and availability of such data. So I again just confirm to the House that having requirements in legislation is not needed or appropriate. And whilst I recognise and value transparency, it's also critical to ensure that the due process for accuracy and quality of data which can be achieved within existing mechanisms for official statistics to be released.

However, however, and this is where I come to my. However, I do note the interest in this topic. I am anxious to try and make some progress. I don't wish to have further ping pong between both houses, if at all possible, and I can make the commitment to the house tonight. The subject of the clause being removed from the bill, i.e. not moved this evening by the noble Lord Jackson. The government will review the data held and publish data held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality.

These statistics will cover a defined period, will be broken down by nationality of the offender as stipulated in the noble Lord Jackson's amendment, and I hope that that commitment can provide members of the House with the reassurance that the government takes seriously the importance of transparency of the immigration system through publication of statistics. Now, the proposal I put to the House tonight provides what I would argue is a achievable, non-legislative solution to what the noble Lord Jackson and others have called for.

This approach will embed publication of the requested data in the wider mechanisms for Home Office publication of statistics, ensuring the outcome is high quality and is appropriately produced along with other data. So I would urge members of the House to support this approach by approving motions before them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the Minister give way? I'll just maybe do a bit of bad cop here, and then potentially my noble here, and then potentially my noble friend can do good cop if he wants to, so can I just press the Minister? So two two questions. Minister? So two two questions. First of all, can you confirm that all of the parts of my noble friend, all of the parts of my noble friend, all the data mentioned in the amendment that my noble friend has on the Order Paper are going to be published? That's the first question.

The second question is, since this was debated just in the since this was debated just in the House of Commons three sitting days ago, why is it that the Minister in the House of Commons didn't just make that commitment then? Because the problem I have is if it's only the problem I have is if it's only with the threat of an amendment being passed, that the Minister is prepared to come to the Dispatch

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to make the commitment, it does. It does make me a little suspicious. Well, please give over. Give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, please give over. Give over, please. You know the whole. Purpose, the whole purpose of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Purpose, the whole purpose of having this House and that House discuss amendments and having ping pong discussions is to achieve a pong discussions is to achieve a compromise between what this House wants to do, what the House wants to do, and to try to find a to do, and to try to find a solution. So I really do. You know, the noble Lord says the Minister and the Other place said X on three days ago. Well, I'm saying this today. If he doesn't want to accept it, he can have a vote.

We can have a discussion, we can see where people vote in this House and we can see where we are. But I really you know, there are sometimes I despair occasionally when I think that we're actually trying to move some things to meet the objectives of the noble Lord Jackson and indeed the noble Lord Harper. And he still doesn't accept the Christmas presents I'm offering him. He still doesn't want to accept that. What I'm saying to him today is that we will, as I have said today, provide information on student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences.

The number of overseas students who have been deported and the revocation of their student visas, and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation. That's what the information is. We will work to commence immediately with a view to publication by the end of the financial year. Should this work, identify additional time required. An update will be provided. But what we're trying to do is to meet the objectives of the request from Lord Jackson. I do hope that the noble Lord will, you know, take take that as a parliamentary democracy.

Discussion between two houses to achieve one small amendment at the end of a lot of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration of a bill to date. And I hope that the noble Lord Jackson will, on. The noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord. Sits down. Can I just. Be confirming. That the noble Lord has. Said, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Said, and. What I've heard from the benches. To my right. Is. That. Apart from the demise of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord. The. Minister, in order to be able to carry out what he just described, carry out what he just described, there is no reason why, as Lord Davis said, they should not accept the amendment that you put forward the amendment that you put forward in the text here. We should take on what the noble Lord says. And if I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were the noble Lord Jackson, I'd take it as a win. And I think he ought to withdraw. Yes. I'm grateful for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. I'm grateful for the noble chairman's support. I mean, I can't guarantee to be here forever. Nor would I wish to be here forever. I've done. I've done 15 years at various despatch boxes over the last 27 years. And the 14 years I last 27 years. And the 14 years I didn't were not my fault. So I didn't were not my fault. So I really do, you know, hope, hope to continue. But I'm giving a commitment on behalf of the United commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom government.

And that commitment is here. It will hold for the term of this Parliament. I
16:55
16:55
16:56
Lord Bishop of Peterborough Portrait The Lord Bishop of Peterborough (Bishops)
-
-
today. He hasn't always been like that, he'll concede. But the context is I asked six parliamentary questions between March and June this year and had March and June this year and had the same vacuous answers from the department, including, of course, we're always undertake a thorough, comprehensive review of statistics, and so therefore he'll forgive me if I'm slightly less willing to take on board. And I'll make the take on board. And I'll make the distinction between him who is a man of honour and integrity, and the department for whom he is the the department for whom he is the Minister, who are not always in the position of putting some issues as top of their priorities.

I'll leave top of their priorities. I'll leave it at that. My my concern, my Lords, and certainly I will also just and certainly I will also just quickly respond to Baroness Hamwee. I'd like to reassure her there was no inference that all foreign no inference that all foreign students are criminals and are likely to be deported because they are criminals. And that's why I are criminals. And that's why I specifically said in my at Report stage quote, I want to make it clear that the vast majority of clear that the vast majority of those individuals come study hard and contribute to our society and economy.

But there is a minority economy. But there is a minority who abuse that privilege, and it is a privilege, as we have some of the world's top universities in our country. And it is not an automatic right to be here. And I stand by those words. My Lords, I am concerned about the lack of focus on this issue. The I was confused by the letter to my noble friend Lord Harper from the noble Lord Lemos. It didn't seem to have a focus on risk assessment.

It wasn't clear about what data would be collected, and in fact, the government seems particularly ill prepared for, as my noble friend alluded to, the visa ban policy on Angola and other countries. If it doesn't collect basic data and publish that data. And the final thing, my Lords, is we seem to have no idea of a timescale. We've constantly been promised that there is a protocol in place for the collection and publication of data, but it's always manana, it's always

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tomorrow. And therefore I think I'd give way to the noble. Just so that he has absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just so that he has absolutely no excuse not to support what I've just said to him. A broad time period will be reported upon, subject to the data being available. I'm beginning to commence work I'm beginning to commence work immediately with a view to publication by the end of the financial year. That is, you know, end of the financial year. That is end of the financial year. That is April. So that's the timescale for the noble Lord, if he wishes to accept that timescale.

If he accept that timescale. If he doesn't, then obviously he can have his division if he wishes. But today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Well, I, I take that offer in good faith, but that will be 14 months since I first asked the months since I first asked the similar question about those figures. The government has had endless opportunities before they launched this new policy, before the Prime Minister's speech on immigration in the autumn, earlier immigration in the autumn, earlier in the autumn, to bring forward their own amendment on this issue. There is I give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is I give away. So. So we'd rather have a division than accept the publication of what he wants by April. Just so I'm clear on what he's saying today, just so the house is clear and what he's saying house is clear and what he's saying today, he'd rather have a vote and try and win a vote to cause more difficulties and more discussion when I'm offering him something by April of next year that he's requesting in the vote. Just so we're clear.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I take on board what the Minister says, but I reiterate the point that it's intellectually point that it's intellectually incoherent to believe in something, to think it's a good policy to say to think it's a good policy to say that you've always believed it, to put it to say in Hansard and in letters to my noble friends, and letters to my noble friends, and not will the means by putting it in primary legislation. So on that primary legislation. So on that basis, I intend to test the opinion of the House to see what they say.

Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. The question is that motion a one be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Content, content. Not content. I think the not. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting. Voting when voting is open. Voting. Voting
17:01
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Geddes (Conservative)
-

17:04
None Portrait Division: Amendment:A1
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Is. The Is. The question Is. The question is Is. The question is motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. The question is motion Is. The question is motion A1? Be agreed to? As many as are that opinion will say content content content content content will the right by the throne. The not right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All All right All right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank Yes. Thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That That is That is the That is the motion That is the motion A1 That is the motion A1 be That is the motion A1 be agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. Yes. You.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I have voted contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I have voted contents 200, not contents 244. So the not 200, not contents 244. So the not contents have it. Question is that motion A be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The the contrary not content. The contents held consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Planning and Infrastructure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now considered. The question is that the Commons reasons and amendments be now reasons and amendments be now considered. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move motion A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their Commons have disagreed for their reason. 1AI will also speak to motions with the leave of the house. I will also speak to motions b, b1, c, c1, D, E and e one which are grouped together. My Lords, it's a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.

A number of
17:13
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – consideration of Commons amendments and/or reasons
-

further commitments were made last week which were relevant. I will
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:14
None Portrait Amendment:A Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

beginning with amendment one, tabled by the noble Baroness Baroness Coffey, which would reinstate the requirement for government to respond to any government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament or select Committee recommendations when making certain material changes to making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core amendment risks undermining a core aim of the bill to keep national policy statements up to date, swiftly and effectively. The swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny.

It is a practical tool accompanied It is a practical tool accompanied by commitments to work with select committees to ensure that NPS can committees to ensure that NPS can be updated without undue delay to reflect public published government reflect public published government policy. Legislative updates, a court decision, or a change to a published document referred to in published document referred to in the statement. National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth if and drive sustainable growth if they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise, and confidence in the system is eroded.

As you know, clause one already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all MPs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest MPs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect updates to the five MPs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and select committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to relate to specific types of updates like reflecting government policy, aligning with legislation or court rulings. The reflective amendment route ensures the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.

To address concerns raised in both houses, the government has made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a select committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the government will take their recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Let me emphasise this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the MPs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves the government, parliament's or ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful. Turning now to amendments two A and three, which in turn seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications.

My Lords, I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness Scott and the noble Lord Parkinson, and recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects like Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost, securing safeguards for heritage and for communities are essential when considering major infrastructure projects.

Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system. Those historic cases I mentioned rose before today's planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a supporting suite of secondary legislation and guidance, which ensures thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts. So, section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents for works affecting listed buildings or monuments to be obtained to instead create a unified consent in the Development Consent Order.

If granted, there are a number of protections, including in legislation which are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one stop shop for consents. First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications, the Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure planning decisions.

Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the National Policy Statements, subject to limited exceptions. The Water Resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs, and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced. The NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some heritage assets have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes World Heritage Sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.

Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent, where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this, but it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England are a are a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation.

If they do so, they are classified as interested parties and will be engaged with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority. During the NSIP examination process. I am confident the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today and as such, I am happy to commit to review the historic environment section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and require considerations of the Secretary of State.

Given the numerous additional protections and commitments. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and will not insist on his amendment to my Lords, on the impact of reservoirs on communities. Before we get to the substance of this amendment, I want to briefly note that the amendment is legally flawed. This amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime. Most of the time, such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a section 14 one M project when the criteria set out in section 27 of the Planning Act is met, I nonetheless want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system.

Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation. Through this bill, the government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process. Let me be clear, the forefront at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about development and the impact it will have.

NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals, and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an application for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The act continues to ensure people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination. Opportunities to be heard. Don't stop there.

Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and or written representation, and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.

While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects. The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption to ensure local communities and impacted individuals voices are heard.

This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to? I missed another bit on EV

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I missed another bit on EV charging accessibility. My apologies to the Deputy Speaker. Can I now move to amendment 31 A Can I now move to amendment 31 A and B, which relate to accessible charging and proposes amendments to the Automated Electoral Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. And can I say a big thank points. And can I say a big thank you to the noble Lord Lord Borwick for his constructive engagement and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey Thompson, and the noble Lord Lord Thompson, and the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for their contributions on this matter.

The government tabled an amendment in lieu, which tabled an amendment in lieu, which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment, reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders. The government's amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that
17:25
17:25
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
chargepoints. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this. This amendment applies to Great Britain. Northern Irish Minister did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter to extend to them, and they are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate we had in this House, led by the noble Lord Borthwick, and I hope this meets all of our noble Lords concerns about this issue.

Turning finally to amendment 32, the government recognised the impact water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I also recognise the wider point made by marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the DEFRA Science search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.

I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place, to set out proposals for the deregulation of low hazard reservoirs within six months of this bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister also went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on farm reservoirs can be used, and this would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance and providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply will support the amendments aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.

In summary, we support the objective of this amendment of the two actions proposed. The first action has already been completed and the government has committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on farm reservoirs, and I hope with these reassurances, the noble Baroness Baroness McIntosh of Pickering will feel able not to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insist on her amendment. I move. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to? Lord Strathclyde tabled motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Strathclyde tabled motion B1. In this group, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister, for what she's set out about it. I think we've made a great deal of progress in relation to a lot of the heritage aspects of this bill, the heritage aspects of this bill, not least in the rewriting of clause 41, which was the one which had caused such consternation for had caused such consternation for heritage groups across the country. And I'm grateful to the government And I'm grateful to the government for taking that away and rewording it in the way that they did earlier it in the way that they did earlier in our in our deliberations on this bill.

The section here that we are discussing relates to reservoirs and the fact that we're still discussing it in, in this way is discussing it in, in this way is because it was inserted in the bill rather later in the in the process. rather later in the in the process. And I was perplexed why, given the progress we made and the rewriting progress we made and the rewriting of clause 41 of the bill, which relates to infrastructure projects
17:29
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
conducted under the Transport and Works Act, the same protections and caution wasn't being given to heritage assets when it came to the government's new proposals on on reservoirs. Grateful for the the recognition the minister's given that that heritage assets cannot be replaced if they are lost. And so, by definition, what we're talking about here, if we are submerging them under water through such large scale projects as reservoirs, then the the risk here is very significant. And particularly if we're relaxing the rules about who can carry out some of these works, I think a lot of the concerns that we had were that this was going to be delegated to companies, potentially international companies, that aren't rooted in in the UK.

And so perhaps bothered about aspects of our heritage that really do matter to communities, then we want to be vigilant here. The Minister very kindly sent us a letter this afternoon. It came through at one 134. So just about four hours ago, saying we recognise the importance of thorough and early engagement with communities and are considering what further commitments can be made to reassure the House that this measure contains sufficient safeguards. And are those further commitments. What she's just said from the Dispatch Box about taking away the the water sections of the the NSIP system, and if so, I think would be helpful if she could set out a bit more about the time frame.

Is she intending to do that before this bill gets royal assent? If not, when might we see the the outcome of her deliberations? It would be helpful to have that, but I I'm grateful to her for for for looking at this further and for the recognition that she's given about the irreplaceability of our heritage. If it's submerged under water.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful for the informal meeting I had with the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said carefully to what the Minister said in response to my motion. E1 and I too will refer in a moment to to the letter received, compounded by the letter received, compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time van had collided with a bridge, but fortunately there was no lasting damage and no one was no lasting damage and no one was was hurt.

Not like the Selby rail disaster. Then they've changed the disaster. Then they've changed the classic out look to modern outlook and I couldn't load up my emails, but I'm very grateful for having but I'm very grateful for having had sight of the letter. The Minister will be aware that the Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook Reservoir failed on the 1st of August 2019. Since that time, 1st of August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, yet it is not due to report till yet it is not due to report till 2027.

My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the government reservoirs is that the government does not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency, mindful of the
17:32
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
sense of urgency, mindful of the fact of how much reservoirs cost to build that the even, I think in spite of NSIPs under this bill before us this evening, that there are other barriers to overcome, the Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I don't know that that is being addressed by the government any time soon. Then my understanding is, and I've tracked this since the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act was adopted, the de minimis rules allowing a small on farm reservoir do require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that those on farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be.

Constructed. So I do take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said in response to the motion E1 this evening. But I don't know that these issues that I've addressed now are both committee and Report stage have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Could the noble Lady confirm whether or not that is statutory? What will the status of that guidance be, just so that those seeking to to construct such reservoirs are very clear as to what the status of that guidance is, and when will the actual guidance to which she referred be published.

So what I'm asking for and I do reserve the right just having made these remarks to to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. But I do believe that, as I put it to the Minister last week, informally, this amendment is designed to help the government. The Environment Agency in June published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to kerb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs in light of the potential public water shortages of 5,000,000,000l of water a day by 2055.

We are very conscious of that in Yorkshire that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought. This last year. We have every prospect of drought continuing into next year. The. Efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors was hampered by the lack of access to water. Also was the case that it was very difficult for both crops, arable and horticultural, to have access to water, as well as watering availability for livestock.

These are very real, urgent issues and I'm afraid that the the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to amendment 32, I think are very thin. We're told that it's necessary. It's not necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs. And I hope this evening that I've set out the reason for the urgency, why this is a very real issue. And I do believe that we need to write onto the face of the bill these concerns that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've set out this evening. My Lords, I just wish briefly to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just wish briefly to refer to motion B and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay B1. Of course, the Lords amendment to a course, the Lords amendment to a that has been sent back to us effectively puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position that it 2008 back into the position that it was originally. So to that extent it's not so objectionable, but what we're looking for, which I think we're looking for, which I think were very eloquently presented both now and at report by my noble friend, is to ensure that when these decisions are being made, we are take, take really full account are take, take really full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable available for irreplaceable heritage assets.

So in addition to the assurances that the noble Lady the Minister has been giving to given to my noble friend about given to my noble friend about national policy statements, can I ask the Minister whether she will ask the Minister whether she will also look at the guidance clause seven two provides for in this bill seven two provides for in this bill the guidance that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which of course, as
17:37
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
the Minister will know, are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. And if that guidance makes clear that the Local Impact Report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected and the impact upon not only those assets themselves, but their environment. I think that that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the section 104 decision.

So I hope the Minister might add that to her ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, just to support E1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, just to support E1 in the name of the noble Baroness McIntosh of Pickering in particularly, I agree with her particularly, I agree with her about the urgency and the slow progress that has actually been made on this, and also about the de made on this, and also about the de minimis rules that thoroughly need updating to make it more possible to avoid drought situations. I have to avoid drought situations. I have just one question for the noble Lady, the Minister.

She referred to a paper appearing later later this year. Does she mean calendar year? In which case it's going to be just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In which case it's going to be just in time for my Christmas stocking? My Lords. I want to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to. Stand briefly to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her Baroness, the Minister, for her amendment 31 and 32, 31 A and 31 B, which is very similar, as she says, to the amendment that I proposed as amendment 31, the noble Lord Lord Hendy is a practical transport Hendy is a practical transport expert. He knows how to mend the bus, as I hope I am, although his bus, as I hope I am, although his expertise is wider than mine based on taxes, I hope that he will agree
17:39
17:40
17:41
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
about whole villages being drowned. And then we have the noble Lady And then we have the noble Lady Macintosh, who is anxious that we build more of us. So we have a bit build more of us. So we have a bit of a dilemma here. So turning to the one in the name of the Lord the one in the name of the Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this bill, we on these benches, on this bill, we on these benches, Liberal Democrat benches, have been wholeheartedly in support of wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage.

And it is very national heritage. And it is very unfortunate that the no. Baroness, the Minister, has been unable to the Minister, has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed at report to provide even greater support for those heritage. The heritage sites and buildings The heritage sites and buildings that may be. Destroyed to create a reservoir, especially as the noble reservoir, especially as the noble Lord Parkinson has pointed out that third parties, even companies based abroad, may be able to now build reservoirs so they may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country do so, and it's a great shame.

And if the noble Lord Parkinson wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these benches would would support him. I'll wait to see. Hear what the Baroness Scott says about. C1 motion and hear whether she wishes to, to or again to test the opinion of the House on that one. And for the noble Baroness McIntosh. I thought the the the noble Baroness, the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance on the thoughts about low hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about, that they are the government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low hazard reservoirs.

And and it seemed to me that that was perfectly acceptable, given that, you know, you have a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs because as we discovered in Derbyshire, when the Toddbrook one failed, it can be volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs have breached. So. So with those remarks, I look forward to the comments made by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conservative front bench. My Lords, before turning. To the specifics of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the specifics of the amendments before us today, I want to restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of approach throughout the passage of this bill. We recognise the legislation's importance to the government and their desire to see government and their desire to see it completed in time for the budget. From the outset, we on these From the outset, we on these benches have worked diligently and constructively through usual channels and beyond, to help ensure channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress.

I was grateful to the noble Baroness, the Leader of the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in The observer yesterday. recently in The observer yesterday. Yet constructive engagement has not meant compromising on scrutiny. My meant compromising on scrutiny. My Lords, we move swiftly through committee focussed interventions where they mattered most and where they mattered most and engaged extensively to set out concerns clearly and robustly.
17:45
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
concerns clearly and robustly. Where the Bill needed strengthening, we made the case firmly between report and ping pong. We engaged with the government in an attempt to secure meaningful change. While some issues have been revisited, many of which will be discussed today, progress has been more limited than we had hoped. That's disappointing, my Lords, through further, though, further opportunities will arise. We understand through future legislation, including the next planning and Nature Bill's. In light of this and given time constraints, we will not press further amendments for Commons consideration.

We welcome ongoing discussions between Baroness Coffey and the noble Lord, the Minister and the lady, the Minister, to ensure streamlined parliamentary scrutiny. And my Lords, I now turn to amendment three. The most difficult part of this group, in our opinion. We first brought this amendment forward to ensure the government confront not just procedural mechanics, but the human reality. When an entire villages faces demolition. My Lords, these are not theoretical planning units. These are communities, histories and homes.

When a nationally significant project puts more than 20 homes at risk. The disruption, my Lords, is profound and it is very personal. We put this amendment back because affected communities should be told early and giving, given a meaningful chance to make their case before a scheme enters the NSIP regime. Since then, my Lords, the Minister has provided detailed assurances, strengthened guidance on early accessible engagement, clearer visibility and accountability from applicants and an earlier review of the water. National Policy Statement my Lords, these commitments are welcome and they are significant.

But we still believe that they don't go as far as we had hoped. They fall short of the statutory protections. We believe communities facing total upheaval deserve. And it is clear this is as far as the government are willing to go at this stage. Although disappointing, we have reached the limits of what can realistically be achieved to this bill. I do not wish to hold up the wider bill. The government need this legislation, the country needs the infrastructure and the housing it supports.

While disappointed, I'm grateful to the Minister for listening and moving, even if it was not far enough as, as and as far as we might have wished. But for these reasons, with real regret, but with pragmatism, I will not press amendment three today. Next, my Lords, I speak to amendment E one, tabled by my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and alongside Baroness Coffey amendment. These highlight the practical and regulatory burdens around low hazard reservoirs.

Baroness Cass is. Mackintosh's expertise on water management, is well known and is well respected, and her determination to ensure proportionate regulations have been welcomed throughout this bill. Baroness Coffey amendment complements this, reinforcing a balanced approach that protects communities while avoiding unnecessary procedural delays. I also acknowledge my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, whose amendment B one seeks to ensure regulatory changes are implemented with care, with transparency and with parliamentary oversight, and together, these amendments reflect a shared concern.

The drive to streamline regulation should not compromise local communities. Environmental safeguards or the robustness robustness of the planning process. My Lords, we welcome the government's insurances on strengthening pre-application consultation, guidance and the early water NPS review. Yet stronger statutory backing would have been preferable. And while, as I have said, we do not wish to hold up the bill, it does still remain disappointing that the government are not prepared to go further, given the risks to residents and communities.

My Lords, throughout the Bill, we have engaged, constructively sought meaningful improvements and pressed repeatedly for stronger protections. Some progress, I have to say, has been made, but far less than we would have hoped. Many issues still remain unresolved, and the government appears unwilling to go further. That is disappointing. Our approach reflects that reality that we do not wish to block the bill, but we cannot ignore the limits of the assurances received, and it is important for the House to hear that while engagement has taken place, the outcomes fall short of fully safeguarding fairness, accountability and community voice.

And my Lords, before I sit down, I have to reiterate a number quite a few of our amendments would have delivered the much needed homes and infrastructure that are the purpose of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to these debates have contributed to these debates today? And I'm very grateful for their engagement throughout the Bill on on these very important matters that have been the subject of of this group. I will address of of this group. I will address noble Lords points individually, if I can start with the noble Lord I can start with the noble Lord Parkinson, I would refer back to all the protections that I set out all the protections that I set out earlier as part of the government's reassurance that we do take the issue of the conservation and issue of the conservation and heritage of heritage buildings really seriously.

However, he asked really seriously. However, he asked me about time frames. It was the intention that the water NPS intention that the water NPS wouldn't be done until 2030, but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring that forward till we will bring that forward till 2026, so that we can make sure that this is done quickly and addressed this is done quickly and addressed to give clarity to all those concerned, and I hope that will
17:52
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
concerned, and I hope that will reassure the noble Lord. I hope that's that's the the with that protection and with that bringing forward of the review to next year, I hope that will enable the noble Lord not to press his amendment in relation to Baroness McIntosh. And I do very much as the noble Baroness Scott said, I very much appreciate the noble Baroness's long standing expertise and commitment to addressing some of the very pressing water management issues that have been around for decades now, and I understand her impatience about the time it's taken to deal with some of these.

I would draw her attention to, in terms of urgency, to the fact that the government has, under the Cunliffe review, has now been undertaken. It was completed this year. The government has already undertaken to produce a water white paper by the end of the year. So we're not hanging around in terms of dealing with this. And once the appropriate consultation has been done on the White Paper, we will be bringing forward legislation in a water bill to deal with it. So I hope that lets her know that the government doesn't want these issues to continue to be hanging around decades from now.

We want to deal with this issue. We do take it seriously. My colleagues in DEFRA I know are dealing with it on a daily basis, and I did want to just set out that the NPS for water resources infrastructure, that was the one designated in September 2023 and amended in 25, does set out the need and government's policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects. So that's large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains the need for the infrastructure and is set out in water company.

Statutory water resources management plans, assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime automatically or by direction, and fall within the NPS scope. The Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS, and this is the importance of having those MPs in place as quickly as possible, so that we can determine applications in accordance with that, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. So the policy therefore ensures that long term water supply, resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework for the reservoirs that the noble Lady was talking about.

We will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as it's practicable to do so. And I'm very happy to work with the noble Lady on that as we move forward with it. The noble Lord Marland Lord Lansley raised the issue of local impact statements. And of course, he's quite right to say that as part of the 2008 act process, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed developments on the authority's area and governments considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on consultation and engagement on NSIPs.

This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports, and we are going to carefully consider what that guidance can say to address concerns raised here about the very heritage impacts that the noble Lord Parkinson has been raising with us. In terms of the noble Lord Cromwell's question, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year. So before the end, hopefully before Parliament goes into recess. But I don't want to commit my DEFRA colleagues further than they've given me licence to do.

So. The noble Baroness Pinnock raised the issues about reservoirs. Well, I think the National policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we do have an obligation. And as I've explained many times, although the national policy statements in themselves aren't, they're not the matter of primary legislation because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances. They do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. So I hope that reassures her that that protection is in place.

And and I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Scott for her comments. She is completely right that we do need to get this bill through so that we can make sure we can start on both the infrastructure projects and the housing building that we need. But I don't want her to think that from my perspective as the Minister responsible for in this House, that the human reality she talks about when communities face the kind of disruption is absolutely not lost on me.

And I will make sure as we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, that we do take full account of the need to make sure that communities are protected in the way that she so admirably championed through the process of this bill. But I do hope that noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it, albeit The contents have it, albeit somewhat sotto voce. Motion B Baroness Taylor of Stevenage move formally, the question is that motion B be agreed to motion b1 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Not moved. The question, therefore, is that motion B be agreed to as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it motion c the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage move. Formally, the question is the motion c be agreed to motion c1 Baroness Scott of Bybrook Lord Brooke not moved. of Bybrook Lord Brooke not moved. Not moved. The question, therefore, is the motion C be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say many as are that opinion will say content the contrary not content.

The contents have it motion D. The contents have it motion D. Baroness Lawlor moved formally. The question is the motion be agreed to? question is the motion be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it motion e the The contents have it motion e the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage move formally the question is the motion be agreed to motion e1 Baroness McIntosh of Pickering.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There was concern on the part of Baroness Pinnock non-hazardous reservoirs are specifically small reservoirs are specifically small reservoirs, and at this point I wonder if the noble Lady, the Minister, could write to me on this point, because I still understand that we do need legislation. That would have been the opportunity to would have been the opportunity to do it this evening, to actually explain the de minimis rules and how non-hazardous small reservoirs how non-hazardous small reservoirs can be built on farms, which farmers are hoping to to happen.

farmers are hoping to to happen. Now, I regret probably there isn't the support in the House to put this to a vote this evening, but I this to a vote this evening, but I will return to this another time, because I don't believe that we've seen any evidence of urgency. I do thank the noble Lady for the concessions that she has given, but I don't believe there's a sense of urgency which the farmers are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urgency which the farmers are crying out for at this time. I beg leave to withdraw. I can reassure the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can reassure the noble Lady that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. So the assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream and safety of people downstream and safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class, so that lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her. The highest hazard class would have more than more than current, so I hope that's reassuring that we don't intend we reassuring that we don't intend we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.

So I hope that reassures her. reassures her.
18:00
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
When that classification is coming in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I write to her on that point? Sorry. Is it your Lordship's pleasure?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure? The amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion be The question is that motion be agreed to? As many as are that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it not content. The contents have it motion f Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move motion f that this House do insist do insist that this House do insist do insist on its amendment 33 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 3830 3AI will also speak to reason. 3830 3AI will also speak to motions G, J and J1 with the permission of the House, beginning with the noble Lord Lord Lansley amendment 33, which seeks to make amendment 33, which seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative subject to the affirmative procedure, I would like to begin by thanking the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very continued engagement on this very important issue.

Having reflected on our useful discussions both in previous debates and subsequent correspondence, and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm to take this opportunity to confirm that the government agrees with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure.

This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before
18:02
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lords point about the saw the noble Lords point about the first set of regulations coming forward. I hope he's reassured on that point. Turning to amendments that point. Turning to amendments 37, tabled by the noble Baroness Baroness Coffey, which would exempt assets of community value from the assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the General Permitted Development Order.

General Permitted Development Order. I am grateful to the noble Lady for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House, although we haven't had this House, although we haven't had first reading yet, but it will be imminently. And if we agree that someone wants to demolish an asset someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it's only right that they should have to submit a planning application so the full planning application so the full planning merits can be considered.

That's why the government has committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate. In the other place, Parliament has granted the Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation, and as such, the government feels we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to consultation on the matter shortly.

I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter. Turning to Lords Amendment 39 on brownfield land and sustainable development. Firstly, I completely agree with noble peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land and I want to be explicit and assure peers that the government already has a brownfield first approach to development, a principle successive governments have adhered to.

That's why the government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land, and why it currently states, and I quote, strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed, assessed development needs in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously developed brownfield land. We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hard standing, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land.

And of course, it's also the case that as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for brownfield land such as protected landscapes, greenbelt and areas of outstanding natural beauty, alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using best and most versatile agricultural land where possible. And I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords. Last year, the government also published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast track building on previously used urban land.

This included exploring the role of national policy and setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year, which will set out a more rules based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development.

Indeed, in that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land, and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough.

Let me be clear with noble peers that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework and all of the points I've made previously over the priority of use of brownfield land is a material consideration in planning decisions, and all strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, it's the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the Brownfield First principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure policies are robust and impactful. We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review.

As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery or allow for, or sometimes not allow for, local circumstances to be taken into account. I fear that these amendments will become a charter for those that may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDS. Let's start first with the fact that the amendment will bite into SDS. These are higher level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium to long term housing and other development needs, and aligning infrastructure provision to support that development.

SDS should, of course, take a brownfield first approach, which, as I've mentioned, is already enshrined in national policy framework, and that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land. The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues. For example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level.

As you know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgements on the suitability of brownfield sites. Having weighed up a balance of considerations, I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would only serve to open up SDS to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies.

This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need, but therefore, with the strong assurances I've made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the government's clear commitment on this and agree with the motion not to insist I move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that. Motion be. Agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreed to? May I first just remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, and thank very warmly the noble Lady, thank very warmly the noble Lady, the Minister, for her engagement and that of her officials with amendment 33, and for the amendment 33, and for the government's support for amendment 33, in giving this House the opportunity on an affirmative opportunity on an affirmative procedure to examine the first use of the national scheme of delegation.

I won't reiterate, delegation. I won't reiterate, noble Lords have heard at committee and report my view of the importance of the national scheme importance of the national scheme of delegation and indeed some issues about how it is to be used and how it's to be structured. It's not simply a case of how important it is, but I think there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation. So I'm immensely grateful to the Minister that they, grateful to the Minister that they, the government is going to look that we insist on amendment 33.

I apologise for my poor drafting. apologise for my poor drafting. Netherlands know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to
18:10
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
these matters, but I neglected to note that if the if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. So there will be a further amendment to to remedy that. When the Commons finish there, the other place finishes their examination. Can I just I'm standing up. Just say I thoroughly agree with my noble friend, Lady Scott, Baroness Scott, on what she was saying about the scrutiny that we've afforded to this legislation.

She and I and indeed the Minister went all the way through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that bill. We've only spent 16 days on this one. So to that extent, we've rushed it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through. But, noble Lords, I thoroughly support motion F. My Lord, sir, I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, sir, I thank. The Minister for her comments regard to motion G and the assets regard to motion G and the assets of community value. I am conscious of the new bill that will be arriving here. I'm also very arriving here. I'm also very grateful for her remarks and those of Minister Matthew Pennycook recognising this as an issue. I was recognising this as an issue. I was very somewhat well, elated when very somewhat well, elated when your Lordships actually voted for the amendment at the time, but I'm conscious that some of these things conscious that some of these things can be done through secondary regulations, so as a consequence I regulations, so as a consequence I won't be testing trying to test anything any further.

But I do look forward to shortly being genuinely forward to shortly being genuinely shortly in terms of the consultation coming forward and hopefully some draft regulations at hopefully some draft regulations at the same time. They're so easy. I've written them for the government already through my First
18:12
18:13
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
the simpler it is, the better. The label also mentioned the forthcoming NPPF consultation. Is she able to give an indication of when the final version of the new NPPF will be published? I appreciate you can't give a precise indication. There is anecdotal evidence that during the consultation of the last NPPF, some applications were put on hold because the applicants wanted to wait to see their final version before putting application on hold. Indeed, I think some evidence as well that during the currency of this bill, again, some infrastructure projects have been put on hold so as to benefit from some of the streamlining.

So the greater the clarity that can be provided as to how long and hopefully fairly quickly the consultation process will take to produce the new NPPF, the better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I start by thanking the noble Baroness Lister for the positive engagement we've for the positive engagement we've had during the course of this bill, and where compromise has been and where compromise has been reached on a number of very important issues. So shows that all important issues. So shows that all the hours we spent discussing and scrutinising this bill has has not scrutinising this bill has has not been in vain. And particularly I'm grateful that the government has seen the light in regards to the noble Lord Lansley requirement for noble Lord Lansley requirement for an affirmative procedure on the national scheme of delegation.

It national scheme of delegation. It is an issue which we on these benches supported the noble Lord, but also tabled our own amendments during the course of deliberations on this bill, because clearly we we on these benches thought it was very important that the first
18:15
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
very important that the first iteration of the national scheme of delegation should be properly and fully scrutinised. And so that is we on these benches really pleased that the government has conceded on that issue, on the assets of community value. We Liberal Democrats supported the noble Baroness Coffey. She made an excellent case about that report, about the reasons for having some protection for those assets. From instant demolition by those who wanted to make it easier to develop a site.

And again, I think the government has come back with some. Some promise of change in that direction that will come in through in later legislation. So, you know, that's two moves we've had. And that that I think reflects the the way that the scrutiny that's approached in this House on legislation has an enormous value. And moving to brownfield sites, I hear that the noble Baroness, the Minister, said about. The importance of putting those as the first port of call for development were her words and and also the noble Baroness, the Minister said about agreeing a minimum minimum intensive intensification of sites, both of which, if you know that I have raised in this house about using sites to their full potential, because that protects other other, particularly greenbelt land from from developers eyeing it up as as going to be then their next area for building.

So really pleased with with that. And and understand what the Baroness has said about strategic development schemes because. You can't be too specific at that level, I think so, which is basically what the Minister was saying. Can I just raise one concern which is about contaminated, severely contaminated sites, which those of you who live in pre-industrial areas are only too aware of a there the the great cost in in remediation. And I have some concerns that when the Minister was talking about brownfield sites and mentioned that some may be too difficult or too contaminated to deal with, and, and I'm at that, I, I do want to press her on that because that would imply that some severely contaminated sites would never be remediated.

And that can't be right. So maybe I've misheard, misunderstood, and perhaps the Minister will explain further on that one. And finally, because the noble Lord want to say how appalled I am that, having been through years of deliberation, no, not that many. Whatever days of deliberation we've had on this bill. That just as we're coming to the end of it, the the Secretary of State issued this this directions about if for 150 sites near railway station is going to be refused, which it may be for very good reason, it's going to be called in now then, that is really not acceptable in my view, especially as we're having been debating a planning bill.

And immediately a new issue comes up. We have a directions call. That's not, in my view, acceptable. And perhaps the Minister will remark further on on that, but we'll listen to what the noble Baroness Boycott has to say, whether or not any of these issues are going to be put to the vote further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I first of all thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for tabling motion F to Minister, for tabling motion F to agree with the Lords motion amendment 33. In the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, I think noble friend Lord Lansley, I think this is a really important amendment, and I'm very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, it has been dealt with in this way, as has with motion G for amendment as has with motion G for amendment 37, in the in the name of my noble friend Baroness Coffey on again another important issue of the another important issue of the assets of community value, and I look forward to seeing those put in look forward to seeing those put in place into the future.

My Lords, I now turn to a motion J1, which we now turn to a motion J1, which we have felt compelled to bring back to the attention of your Lordships' House today. Although we will not House today. Although we will not be pressing this matter further, it is important that the concerns are is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the government's previous
18:21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake. First, the government has sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister's response relied almost exclusively on guidance, perspective, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. And as we all know, the system is failing precisely because the guidance can be overlooked and too often is brownfield.

Opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist. They ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them. Secondly, the government's response response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It's about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reduced travel distances, and aligning development patterns with our environmental, environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the government's reply, which focussed solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified, rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development.

Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability, sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional, desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient. My Lords, let me finally address the Minister's suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity and the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. My Lords, in effect, the Minister defended the status quo. But legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change. Indeed, of any planning decision, the possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction.

It is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time reduce conflict by giving decision makers firmer parameters and greater certainty. My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, the Minister, wrote over the weekend outlining the government's intention. Her letter stated that the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision making, including on brownfield sites. And today we accept that the government again says that the national policies are the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions and that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the brownfield first principle.

But if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield use must rise, and it must rise meaningfully. As a direct result of these changes, warm words about future consultations are not enough. They must turn into action. My Lords, this House must be able not only to see the data, but to be able to interrogate it, to track progress, and to hold the government firmly to account.

If Ministers are confident in their claims, then they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. My Lords, until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain. My Lords, we live in a small island. Future food security is critical in the world we live in. This bill has taken our land, our agricultural land for energy use and now for housing.

My Lords, Greenfields produce food for our nation. Wheat and potatoes. Cannot my Lords be produced on urban brownfield sites?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I contributed to the debate, and I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. been raised during our discussion. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lansley, the noble Lord Banner and Baroness Boycott for their Baroness Boycott for their endorsement of our position on amendment F. I always hope that amendment F. I always hope that where there's a good idea comes forward, we won't hesitate to accept it.

And that was a good idea accept it. And that was a good idea and we will be moving that forward. In terms of the noble Baroness In terms of the noble Baroness Coffey amendments as well, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It's a very different approach to It's a very different approach to assets of community value. It does expand the definition of community assets of community and value, assets of community and value, including sporting and recreational assets.

It gives longer for
18:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
assets. It gives longer for communities to do the work that they need to do in order to enact this, this right, and it also gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have very good debates on as we go through the process of that bill. The noble Lord Banner made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds. I will it's a very good point. I will take that back, and I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.

On in relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay does cause uncertainty. We are hoping to do this by the end of the year, but I would say that planning is a dynamic process, and I know when we were having some debates recently with the housing Minister and some developers, and he did say to them, you can't always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We do want people to get on and build the infrastructure and the housing we need.

There may be changes in the future. Planning is always going to be dynamic. It will have to change as as things change. But you know, I think it's very important that we do make sure we've got the NPPF fit for purpose. We get this planning bill through, and then we can get on and deliver what we need to deliver. I hope I picked up the noble Baroness Pinnock point on assets of community value in my response to Baroness Coffey on brownfield sites and the contaminated sites points you made, which is an important one.

I would say that the viability APPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. So the guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. So we continue to look at this as we go through, because I know that where there are sites with high levels of contamination, and she may be aware that I visited Stoke on Trent recently, and Stoke on Trent, for example, has some sites which have they've been built on what used to be former mining areas.

These are an issue. We continue to keep that under review, as you would expect. On her points about the minister's announcement on railway stations. I think it kind of it makes the point that we've been arguing around brownfield sites. If railway land around railway stations, for the most part is can be considered to be brownfield sites, we want to make sure we make the most of those sites. They do have good transport links. They're often very essential to the economy of an area, and that's why the Minister felt it was appropriate in that case to make that a consideration, that where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in.

Of course, the communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process. But I do think it's important that we if we're going to make some progress with brownfield sites. And I took the noble Baroness Cox challenge of showing the actions, the outcomes of this, and I'm sure she'll return to this with me in future, we do need to take some action that's going to enable those brownfield sites to be built on. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness Scott for her comments around what's being done in relation to brownfield sites.

We will be consulting on a revised framework this year, and it will make consideration of brownfield a material consideration in the in the planning process. So I hope that this and the instigation of a of brownfield passport, which we will be coming to imminently, will reassure her that we don't intend to park this or ignore it. We do absolutely take her point about the protection of best agricultural land. It's really important and my colleagues in Defra are working on their land use framework as we speak, and what we want to do is make sure we make the most of brownfield sites.

As I set out in my earlier words, that we are making that the priority before we look at other types of land for developing either infrastructure or housing. I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate, and I move. The question. Is that. Motion F.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion F. Be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it not content. The contents have it motion g Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. Formally. Formally, the Stevenage. Formally. Formally, the question is that motion g be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content contrary not content the content contrary not content the contents have it motion h Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move motion h that this House do not insist on that this House do not insist on its amendment 38 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 38 a and with the reason. 38 a and with the permission of the House, I will also speak to motions H1K and k one. I would like to thank the right I would like to thank the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble Baroness, Baroness Willis, for their amendments in lieu relating to chalk streams and environmental delivery plans.

Turning first to delivery plans. Turning first to Lords Amendment 38 be tabled by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, and can I thank him for
18:32
18:33
None Portrait Amendment:H Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

enhance chalk streams through spatial development strategies. I recognise and appreciate the positive intent of the amendment and I emphasise once again, the government is absolutely determined to restore and improve the chalk streams. I should highlight that any provisions in regulations made by Statutory Instrument are legislative requirements rather than guidance, and this amendment refers to both terms we set out in the other place. We do not believe that legislation requiring spatial development strategies is the best place to protect these vital ecosystems.

Furthermore, new legislation on this specific matter would duplicate existing policy on the issue policy that we have already committed to update with specific reference to chalk streams. Strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm's length bodies like the Environment Agency, that have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. And those are the two main issues that affect the viability of chalk streams. The spatial development strategies will be high level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment.

They will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, spatial development strategies will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. As locally led spatial exercises. Those local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them. Local nature recovery strategies, which include important chalk streams in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Norfolk, are already doing this. We want to support these welcome efforts and I can therefore make clear today that in responding to this amendment, in the other place, the government has committed to amend statutory guidance to encourage chalk streams to feature prominently in local nature recovery strategies going forward.

When it comes to the planning system, which is obviously the focus of this bill, it remains the government's view that the conservation of chalk streams is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy, which applies to all tiers of the planning system, from strategic policies through to individual planning applications. As per the commitment made by the Housing and Planning Minister. In the other place on the 13th of November, and that I referenced a moment ago, the government will now include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making that we intend to consult on before the end of this year.

This will ensure that chalk streams are explicitly recognised as features of high environmental value in national planning policy, and that clear expectations are set for plan makers and decision makers in respect of managing the impacts of development on these sensitive water bodies. Of course, as noble Lords are well aware, among the most pressing of the multiple pressures facing chalk streams are systemic issues in the water system. The government is absolutely determined to take bold action to address pollution and overabstraction measures that will safeguard and restore chalk streams are already embedded into our ambitious programme of reforms to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

While it does not directly relate to the planning system to provide noble Lords with additional reassurance as to the government's intentions in this area, I can commit today that the government will embed actions to improve chalk streams into the water. White paper, which will be published before the end of the year. That white paper will, of course, feed directly into the development of forthcoming legislation in this area. My Lords, I appreciate entirely the strength of feeling on this issue. Both the Housing and Planning Minister and I have very much appreciated the considered engagement we have had on this matter and the opportunity to discuss how we best achieve what our ultimately shared priorities.

I hope that through the assurances that the government has now provided in respect of the Water White Paper, Lners Strategic statutory guidance and forthcoming changes to national planning policy, noble Lords are reassured that these vital ecosystems will soon get the recognition and the protection that they deserve. Turning to amendments 40 B and C, tabled by Baroness Willis of Summertown. My Lord, the Other place has chosen to reinstate the original drafting of clause 55 now clause 63, so that EDPs are no longer limited to a closed list of environmental impacts.

I'm incredibly grateful for the continued engagement with peers on this amendment. In particular, Baroness Willis, Baroness Chisholm, Baroness Grender, Lord Krebs, and Lord Roborough who have given up their time to work with the government to consider this issue. These discussions have made it clear that the aim of the original amendment was not to restrict the ability of EDP to support environmental features where appropriate, but to seek assurances in two key areas how the government will prioritise EDPs coming forward and how we will embed the lessons from early EDP into the future.

Pipeline of EDPs. The proposed amendment in lieu seeks to develop this position, but I will make further commitments on these points today, which I hope will provide noble Lords with the reassurances they need to support the government's position. Before I set these commitments out, I will again highlight that the Nature Restoration Fund is a targeted tool designed to address specific impact of development on a specific environmental feature. This targeted approach means two things. First, that an EDP would only ever be brought forward where there is a clear case that an environmental feature is affecting development consent, as it simply would not make sense to bring forward EDPs where there isn't a need.

And second, that an EDP could only ever be put in place where conservation measures would materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature. As was highlighted in the other place, it's right that we are guided by the science, and I know Baroness Willis has particularly strong feelings about this, and she's quite right to have those. And the legislation ensures that the design, making and delivery of EDPs are evidence led. And as we set out in the other place, we know that strategic approaches can work for both sites and species, as demonstrated through the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts and our experience of nutrient mitigation schemes.

To date, noble Lords will be aware that the bill requires Natural England to notify the Secretary of State of their intention to develop an EDP, which ensures the Secretary of State has direct oversight of the development of EDPs, as well as their role in considering whether to formally approve an EDP. This clear mechanism ensures there is clarity as to when a new EDP is being prepared, and of course, all EDPs will be subject to public consultation before they are sent to the Secretary of State to consider.

In terms of learning from the early EDPs, the bill provides a number of important safeguards. The first is the ongoing requirement for monitoring, which will ensure that conservation measures are performing as intended, with backup measures being deployed if there is underperformance, this is not. This not only ensures that EDPs are subject to ongoing review, but goes beyond the monitoring requirements under the existing system and means we will capture important data about the performance of conservation measures, which will inform future EDPs.

The second key limb in the legislation are the reporting requirements, which set minimum reporting periods for individual EDPs, which reinforce the monitoring provisions by requiring a further assessment as to whether the EDP is on track to meet the overall improvement test. There is also a wider annual reporting requirement across the entire Nature Restoration Fund, which will set out all the EDPs that are in force, as well as the pipeline of any Edps being prepared. Taken together, we hope it's clear the Bill provides assurances both at the point of development of Edps and through to the implementation, that EDPs can only be used where they can be shown to work.

However, throughout the bill's passage, the government has sought to ensure that all parliamentarians and stakeholders could have confidence that the new regime would deliver a win win for development and the nature and nature that we envisage. And with this in mind, we want to provide additional assurance that Edps will be appropriately sequenced. Of course, as we have set out before, the Nature Restoration Fund is self-limiting by design in that an EDP can only be put in place where it can be shown to materially outweigh the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature, using best available scientific evidence.

However, as a first step in respect of sequencing, I will commit here that the first EDP will address nutrient pollution only. This is an area where we have substantial first hand evidence that a strategic approach works. It's also an area in which Natural England have already proved their expertise in supporting the delivery of mitigation across the country. Taking this approach will therefore provide us a useful test case to demonstrate both the impact of Edps and Natural England's ability to deliver.

We will, of course, then also pay particular attention to the results of the regular monitoring and reporting of these early edps. These monitoring and reporting requirements ensure transparency and provide the opportunity for both government and external scrutiny of the ongoing impact and delivery of Edps. We know from our engagement across the bill that independent and expert bodies, such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the office for Environmental Protection may wish to undertake scrutiny of this kind. This will support the assurance of the Nature Restoration Fund delivery and evolution, and the government looks forward to working closely with these bodies as we move forward with the Nature Restoration Fund.

And while the bill provides for this transparent approach, I will also commit the government returning to the House once the first nutrient EDPs are made to issue a statement on the initial learnings from their development and implementation. It will only be after the House has seen this statement that the Secretary of State will make any further EDPs on other environmental issues. Whilst Natural England may wish to undertake preparatory work in parallel on potential future edps, this approach will ensure that any learning from the first nutrients EDP is considered before any EDPs beyond nutrients are made and operational.

And as we move forward with implementation, we're incredibly grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Willis and the noble Lord Lord Krebs for their offer to continue to work with the government as we progress with developing crystal clear guidance that will ensure developers, environmental groups and communities can navigate this new system effectively. This collaborative approach will ensure the targeted tools unlock the positive outcomes I know we all want to see. I move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to? Motion H1, the Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? Motion H1, the Lord Bishop of Norwich. My Lords, I beg to move motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H at end to insert and do propose end to insert and do propose amendment 38 B in lieu. I am grateful for the strong support my earlier amendment 38 gained at earlier amendment 38 gained at report. Chalk streams are globally rare habitats, of which we have 85% rare habitats, of which we have 85% in England. We simply must protect them and other irreplaceable them and other irreplaceable habitats.

Because we have lost so much of this nation's nature much of this nation's nature already. Now I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for noble Baroness, the Minister, for her hard work on this bill and for engaging with me, together with Baroness Grender, Baroness Willis Baroness Grender, Baroness Willis and the Earl of Caithness, together with the Minister for Housing and
18:45
18:46
Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
different from explicit protection, which would be so much stronger. So which would be so much stronger. So would the noble Baroness, the Minister state that protection is needed, not just recognition in needed, not just recognition in these national policies. And finally, whilst the White Paper on finally, whilst the White Paper on on water is is vitally awaited by your Lordships' House and then a subsequent bill, the problem is the time keeps slipping away into the time keeps slipping away into the future.

Time is of essence for the protection of our chalk streams. So I'm sorry to be a little troublesome, but with this amendment I'm seeking to elevate statutory protection for chalk statutory protection for chalk streams which should be protected outside of and above the planning outside of and above the planning system. The intent of my amendment is to ensure clarity and certainty over what developers and planners over what developers and planners must do when development is proposed, which would adversely impact on chalk streams.

You see, at present, developers are understandably confused by chalk streams and indeed other irreplaceable habitats. There is no clear statutory defined list of clear statutory defined list of chalk streams, and there is no consistent approach to their protection. Instead, we're relying upon conflicting, shifting and overlapping non-statutory planning policies to protect some of our most cherished natural heritage. This adds cost. It adds risk. It adds uncertainty for developers and puts significant pressure on an already overloaded planning system. Chalk streams, like other irreplaceable habitats, are too important to be swept up into the maelstrom of competing interests fought out across the ever shifting sands of planning policy.

Irreplaceable habitats need elevated and nationally consistent protections so that developers and planners know exactly where they stand. And that's what I'm calling for today. My amendment would ensure that there was a clear, consistent national approach to protecting these jewels in the crown, an approach that can't be overridden at the whim of, say, some future Minister for short term political convenience. This would give reassurance as well, my Lords, to an increasingly concerned public that these precious national nature treasures should not be damaged or destroyed.

My Lords, housing and infrastructure development needs to fly in formation with nature. I look forward to the debate and the Minister's response, though I may then wish to test the will of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House, I beg to move. The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion be agreed to? Since when motion H1 has been moved as an amendment to motion H at the end to amendment to motion H at the end to insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. The question marshalled list. The question therefore is that motion h1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. I rise to speak. To motion. K1 in my. Name, and. Actually I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Actually I. Do have a whole. Speech written, and I'm not going to. Give.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give. It because I was. I greatly appreciate the words that came from the noble Lady, the Minister, the concerns around the EDPs I think are absolutely critical. Even this are absolutely critical. Even this morning I had many, many emails in my inbox from all walks of life, my inbox from all walks of life, from builders, from nature conservation people, even from
18:50
18:50
None Portrait Amendment:K1 Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-

we have the evidence base. And what I heard from noble Lady, the Minister, and we had this very constructive meeting and an exchange of letters, myself and other peers involved in this, is that actually the government has listened in this case. And we are we will start with nutrients and then we'll build from that. But we will learn on the way with the evidence. And also very, very important is that that evidence comes back to this house. But it's also an independent body looks at that evidence base so that Natural England are not marking their own homework, which has always been a concern by many.

So on that basis, I would like to just say thank you for such helpful discussions on this. And I do believe that we will end up with a situation in the case of EDPs, where I hope that we will understand how they work to effect for the biggest blockers, but they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also work for nature as well. My Lords. I just wanted to speak very briefly to amendment K one. I will also not be giving the speech that I prepared in the light of the I prepared in the light of the assurances from the noble Lady, the Minister, which for which I'm very grateful because I think this is a very important area. However, I've very important area. However, I've got a couple of clarifications which I hope she might be able to which I hope she might be able to give.

Firstly, she mentioned public consultation on EDPs and I just wondered how that will actually work, because I think this independent evaluation of the evidence is so important. It'd be evidence is so important. It'd be really good to hear exactly how that public consultation will be done. And when it comes to assessing the evidence, my noble assessing the evidence, my noble friend Baroness Willis just mentioned, it would be it's fantastic that it is being done by an independent body, but who an independent body, but who exactly is doing the monitoring and the gathering of the evidence? Is
18:52
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
that Natural England or is that independent bodies, and then who is doing the assessment of the evidence? Is that independently done? And my final clarification is over. What time period is the monitoring of these first EDPs to be done before the report comes back to the House? Because I think it's really important that we get the longer term evidence before we commit to any more. The example of great crested newts has been given multiple times, and it's they're a great species for doing these kind of district wide licensing, but they have specific characteristics, which means that they are good for doing that.

And we have a lot of knowledge about them, and we have a good data about them. And when the ponds are done for them, they're dug before destruction happens of their existing habitat. And there's a minimum 25 year commitment to those ponds. And it's not clear that that's going to be the case for these new EDP. So it would be great to hear about the time periods of the evidence gathering and what time period the commitments are anticipated to be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to very. Strongly support the amendment. H one in the name of the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

H one in the name of the noble Lord, the Right Reverend Prelate. The Bishop of Norwich. And there are two concerns that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And there are two concerns that I have with the government response. To this. The first is the issue of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The first is the issue of protection, and that is not present at the moment. It's severely lacking. I've visited chalk streams, lacking. I've visited chalk streams, and I have actually seen chalk streams that are probably beyond recovery, and it's still happening. recovery, and it's still happening. And so there is a real urgency, a need for urgency to protect the need for urgency to protect the rest of what we have and perhaps to instigate measures to recover them. instigate measures to recover them.

And the second thing is the noble Lady, the Minister mentioned two organisations that, in my view as a organisations that, in my view as a green, have been largely discredited in their protection of the environment. And one of them is the environment. And one of them is Natural England and the other is the Environment Agency. Neither of
18:54
18:56
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be aware that the Right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, has reflected, has looked at the criticism made in the House of Commons about spatial development strategy and their use, and has therefore provided us with an amendment this evening which uses guidance backed by regulation. We believe that it is technically right in terms of approach and that it is possible to do this. The second point is about time and time being of the essence.

The, the, the Minister, the noble Baroness. The Minister expressed frustration under the previous government about the pace at which protection of chalk streams was moving. And we are very much at the 11th hour now, and time is so precious with regard to these that embedding something even in this legislation, even now, rather than waiting for a white paper, rather than waiting for a bill next year when goodness knows how long that will take, is to me the very kernel of the argument for us pressing the House of Commons to think again.

And we are here in numbers. If the Right Reverend prelate decides to push and test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Conservative Benches will join with us and the crossbenchers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and express a strong opinion on it. Yes. I thought it was frontbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought it was frontbench. Lord, I rise to speak very briefly in relation to motion K1, briefly in relation to motion K1, and I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, the Minister, for noble Baroness, the Minister, for her statement from the Dispatch Box, which meets many of the concerns that we had, but also for the time that she and other Ministers spent discussing this with us. I just wanted to allude to one part of her wanted to allude to one part of her statement, which was the development of of guidance, because a lot of the devil will be in the a lot of the devil will be in the detail of how the builders actually receive guidance and how they respond to it.

And particularly, I think one is concerned about small builders who don't have a legal builders who don't have a legal team to interpret the guidance or spend a lot of time trying to understand it. And it is the case understand it. And it is the case that my noble friend Baroness Willis and I have spent quite a lot of time trying to understand how the piece of the jigsaw fit together, the Habitats regulations,
18:59
Lord Krebs Portrait Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
together, the Habitats regulations, the Nature Restoration Fund and the EDPs and the biodiversity net gain requirements. And we have produced our own flowchart and we've had flowcharts provided us by the noble Baroness, the Minister, and we're still somewhat in the dark. So of course, it's possible that the combined brains of two Oxford professors are not enough to tackle the complexity of this matter, but we have given it quite a lot of effort, and therefore I very much welcome the statement from the noble Baroness, the Minister, that she would involve us both in helping to simplify the guidance in a way that will actually make it useful and practically helpful to builders and developers, particularly those running small businesses.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I too, thank the assurances.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assurances. That she. Has given. Us on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Us on. K1. I was rather fond of K1. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

K1. I was rather fond of K1. And would have. Preferred it being in the. Face. Of the bill. It represented a fair compromise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It represented a fair compromise to me. The reasons I think it's really important is are threefold. One is partly to provide some pacing for Natural England because pacing for Natural England because there is a real potential for them overextending themselves and not doing any of the EDPs very well as doing any of the EDPs very well as a result. Secondly, because there needs to be proper evaluation, because this is a very new and untried system, and I think that the monitoring and the evaluation shouldn't just be about
19:00
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
shouldn't just be about biodiversity, but should also be about whether this actually works for developers, because the whole point of the exercise is to try and unlock delays. And it is quite a complicated system for developers to operate. So I think the early ones, we need to really examine our conscience and see whether they're delivering both for biodiversity and for speeding up the development process. And and thirdly, I think the important thing is clarity for developers. And I'm very much welcome the the fact that there's going to be a pipeline in the annual report that will enable developers to see what EDPs are likely to come up for development in the future.

The usual situation, of course, is that when middle ground has been filled by the concessions and assurances, you kind of ask yourself why they just can't be expressed in statute, since they do meet many of the points that we've raised. But I recognise that this is probably as far as we'll get on this one and do very much welcome the, the, the. Assurances and the concessions that have come in the direction of the concerns that we've expressed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, just a very quick remark, if I may, on motion K1, I'd like to underline what the noble like to underline what the noble Baroness Freeman said about the need for the independence of the monitoring and evaluation. The noble Baroness Willis referred to it, but I'm not sure that the noble Lady, the Minister, did refer to it in her remarks. Forgive me if I missed it. Can we hear from her, please, on this? Just to put it please, on this? Just to put it beyond doubt, and on the remarks of Lord Krebs about the need for flowcharts, we're definitely going flowcharts, we're definitely going to need a definitive agreed one.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, if the chalk streams are in a moment of crisis, what this amendment actually does is not to balance the Secretary of State into some action. It simply says into some action. It simply says sexual state must, within 12 months of the day on which this act is of the day on which this act is passed, by regulation made by Statutory Instrument, provide
19:03
19:03
19:04
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
forester and a developer of housing, commercial premises and renewable energy. My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone for pursuing these restrictions on IDPs and for all of those who have supported them. The noble Baroness. The Minister, has been generous with her time and that of her officials throughout the passage of this bill, and our discussions around these and other amendments have been thoughtful and constructive. I am grateful for the government's commitments and concessions laid out today.

They may not go as far as we might have wished. However, these commitments will allow Parliament to scrutinise the progress of IDPs and hold the government to account over their extension. Although I doubt as a hereditary peer that I'll be here to be part of that. I do have two challenges related to nutrient neutrality that I would like to put to the noble Baroness, the Minister, my Lords, the government refused to accept my amendments that sought not to reimpose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites.

My division was narrowly disagreed with. I have made the government aware that since that debate, this issue was already restricting planning consents, with a further 550 homes likely to be blocked in Somerset, as the council anticipates the reintroduction of these regulations in this bill, what consideration has the noble Baroness, the Minister, given to preventing the bill from blocking new housebuilding in this way? My Lords, in response to Freedom of Information request, Natural England provided some interesting data. In 2023, Natural England promised Ministers to unlock 40,000 homes from nutrient neutrality restrictions, with £33.5 million of taxpayer funding.

In responding to this Freedom of Information request, Natural England have disclosed that they have spent over £28 million, including over £4 million on administration, and have only generated enough units to unlock 11,000 homes. Scrutiny of these IDPs will need to be forensic and rigorous before Natural England should be allowed and trusted to attempt them in far more complicated areas. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the government has made thoughtful concessions and we on these benches are satisfied that this will provide a good opportunity for scrutiny.

My Lords, moving to the amendment on chalk streams, they do face urgent and growing pressures, as others have laid out in this debate. Yet the tools we rely on to protect them are still not fully in place. The government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as part of the solution, but without the long promised regulations giving them real weight in the planning system, they simply do not have the bite required. Given the scale of the threat from development, footprints, pollution and overabstraction, we cannot afford further delay, nor can we wait until 2030 for the abstraction licence reforms to take effect.

We must ensure that spatial development strategies can direct development away from vulnerable chalk stream catchments. It is a practical and necessary step to prevent irreversible harm to these globally rare habitats. While we support amendment 38 B's intent, we would not be able to support a division today for the reasons laid out by my noble friend, Lady Scott earlier, but we will look to find other avenues to push forward this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agenda. My Lords, I'm very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed in these debates on these particular issues. But I also these particular issues. But I also wanted to give a general statement of thanks to everybody who's engaged with this bill. We've had a huge variety of topics discussed and some very technical issues to and some very technical issues to go through. I've been very grateful for noble Lords patience as I've sought to find answers to the sought to find answers to the questions that have arisen during the course of our debates, but also the course of our debates, but also of the willingness, which is the best aspect of this House, to move these debates forward in a these debates forward in a constructive and helpful way.

I've really appreciated that, and I'm really appreciated that, and I'm very grateful for all of the the many meetings that we've had and the late nights, indeed, that we've we've sat in the course of this bill, so can I issue my I'll give
19:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
you all my my great thanks for that work. I will respond now to some of the particular points raised in this debate. The the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich mentioned that local nature recovery strategies don't do don't capture the catchment area of a river. And I think the right reverend Prelate points to the exact reason that we think that the water white paper and the and the bill that will follow on from that is vital for this proper protection of chalk streams that we're all seeking for.

And the reason for that is because we know that the main issues facing chalk streams, and I can't remember who said it, but I think it was Baroness Jones. I too, have stood in more than one chalk stream because I live in Hertfordshire, where we've got a lot of them, and I know that the issues of abstraction and pollution can't be addressed in this way. They need to be addressed through the forthcoming water bill, and I know my colleagues in Defra are very keen to do that, but I would point to the National Planning Policy Framework, which does set out planning policies and decisions, should protect chalk streams as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, and local plans should identify, map and safeguard them as local wildlife rich habitats.

I did like the the phrase that the right reverend Prelate used, which was that housing and development should fly in formation with nature. I totally agree with him, and I hope that as we've gone through the process of this bill, noble Lords will have noted that it is the government's intention that we want to make sure as we pursue this building of both homes and infrastructure, we do want to see a win win for both nature and for development to deliver what we need.

And we protect the very important natural resources we have around us. At the same time, I'm very grateful to Baroness Willis for her remarks. I know the concerns around EDPs are real. She spoke about our ambitious, bold new framework, but we have listened and in local government we have a test and learn approach to things because we all learn from each other as well as from things we've done ourselves. And I hope that she and other noble peers will agree that the the commitments I've set out today enable us to do that with EDPs as well.

I've been very grateful to her and the noble Lord Krebs for all the work they've done on this, and their flowchart indeed was a great help. It wasn't. I wasn't trying to mark their homework. I hope they will forgive me. We were just trying to expand the flowchart that they made to hopefully make it more helpful. And we will continue, of course, to work with them on that. The noble Baroness Freeman asked about consultation. Natural England are required to consult the public and any public authority they consider relevant on a draft EDP for a period of at least 28 working days, Natural England must seek the views of relevant local planning authorities as part of their consultation and on the time frame.

I'm afraid it's not possible to give a time frame for when we will return to the House ahead of the first EDPs being developed. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that each EDP will need to include monitoring requirements that will form part of the draft EDP when put out for consultation, so you will see the time frame set out as we bring those EDPs forward. The noble Baroness Jones spoke about she didn't like the Environment Audit Committee or the organisation for Environmental Protection.

It's very difficult to and they're the organisations I was looking to to work with. Natural England Natural England of course will have the data, but they will be there to help provide the scrutiny for this without using those organisations. I don't know where we go with that, but I hope we will be able to convince her that there are organisations who can do this effectively, and we're willing to listen to any suggestions she may have as well. Baroness Grender I'm very grateful for the welcome on the EDPs issue.

I understand she may have ongoing concerns on chalk streams. I hope I've reassured her on some of those points. I think the noble Lord Krebs referred to the the plethora now we've got of Habs regs EDP. Biodiversity net gain. I do think we need to simplify the guidance on this, and I hope that he will again continue to work with us on that mission. The noble Baroness Laing spoke about clarity for developers. That's exactly what we're trying to deliver as part of this bill.

And again, I've been very grateful to all noble peers who've helped us to do that. The noble Lord Cromwell. I hope I've reassured him on the independence of scrutiny. We do want to use those organisations that are well respected to help with the scrutiny of the EDPs Lord Roborough, if I might reply to you on the regs on Ramsar sites for Somerset in writing, I will do so on that matter on the issue around the Natural England data about unlocking homes.

I think these things have they have a cumulative effect. So I do hope that, you know, the money that Natural England have spent will help them to have the structures and processes in place to continue to work with us, to deliver the homes that we all want to see. And I hope that that work is ongoing. I look forward to working with Natural England and others. In the meantime, I hope I've been able to reassure noble Lords of our intent to protect our precious chalk streams.

As I've said, you've heard me say it many times. I live in Hertfordshire. It is definitely in my interest to protect those chalk streams. I believe that we now have the right processes in place, and I hope that the reassurances we've given over the sequencing of EDPs will help noble Lords to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I move. Just before the. Can I just ask? She gave me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just ask? She gave me encouraging reassurance about independence and she said, I think she referred to two bodies who she referred to two bodies who would be doing the monitoring and evaluation. Could you just repeat for me? I think I missed it, who for me? I think I missed it, who they are and are they fully independent of Natural England and the Environment Agency?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Environment Agency? Well, I was I, I haven't made an approach to these organisations so I don't want to commit them to I don't want to commit them to doing this, but we would be working or if the Environmental Audit Committee or the organisation for Environmental Protection, office for Environmental Protection, sorry, wanted to get involved in the wanted to get involved in the scrutiny of the EDPs, we'd be very happy to facilitate that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. I thank all who have contributed to this, this contributed to this, this discussion, this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness for her customary care in in the her customary care in in the answers she's given to us, what we agree on across all sides of this agree on across all sides of this house is that chalk streams are precious, irreplaceable habitats precious, irreplaceable habitats that are gravely endangered. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for giving a sense that you would like.

He would like to continue to press other, other ways with this, with this whole area, but by my view does remain that we need clear legal protections for chalk streams and other irreplaceable habitats so that developers and planners know where they stand, and so the public can be reassured that protections aren't going to be easily wiped out overnight. And so with this in mind, my Lords, I seek to test the will of the House.
19:17
19:18
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

I I know I know that
19:20
None Portrait Division: Amendment H1
-

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is motion H1 be agreed to? As many as are in that opinion will say content. Contrary, opinion will say content. Contrary, not content? No, I think the not not content? No, I think the not contents have it. The contents will go to the right by the throne, but go to the right by the throne, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion h1 be agreed to. Good Good morning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents There have voted contents 81.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents 81. Not content 132. So be not content seven. seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I. The question now is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question now is that motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content that opinion will say content contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it motion J Baroness Taylor of Stevenage who who formally the question is motion j be agreed to motion J one Baroness Scott of motion J one Baroness Scott of Bybrook not moved. Question is motion j be agreed to. As many as have that opinion will say content content not content the contents have it motion k Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

The question is motion k Stevenage. The question is motion k be agreed to motion k one Baroness
19:28
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

Willis of Summertown not moved. The question is motion k be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content said the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The final item of business. The House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're You're going You're going to You're going to get.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're going to get.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're going to get. Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House of Commons on Tuesday, the 18th of November, on ExxonMobil Mossmoran. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

His Majesty's Official Opposition's thoughts are with the 450 workers at ExxonMobil's Fife 450 workers at ExxonMobil's Fife plant who now face losing their livelihoods. That plant had been a cornerstone of chemical production cornerstone of chemical production in the United Kingdom for 40 years. in the United Kingdom for 40 years. people and whole communities and what comes next? They deserve our sympathy, of course, but sympathy sympathy, of course, but sympathy won't keep an industry alive. And this closure was not unavoidable.

It is happening because of this It is happening because of this government's policies. My Lords, the chief executive of the Society of Chemical Industry, Sharon Todd, of Chemical Industry, Sharon Todd, put it starkly without further government action to address high energy costs for industry and a greater consideration of the importance of fossil carbon for material feedstocks. Industrial material feedstocks. Industrial resilience in the UK is undermined and further closures are increasingly likely. What a verdict, my Lords, and it is one that the
19:31
19:31
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
paid by workers, by manufacturers and by communities up and down the country. Exxon, ExxonMobil is not country. Exxon, ExxonMobil is not alone. We are seeing exactly the same story in steel. Everywhere you look, energy intensive industries look, energy intensive industries are struggling with the same crushing energy costs, and the pattern is not subtle. The government's energy policy is pulling in the opposite direction to its supposed number one priority to its supposed number one priority growth. You can't claim to have a plan for growth while presiding over some of the highest electricity prices in Europe.

It electricity prices in Europe. It just doesn't add up. Only a few weeks ago, the US ambassador to the UK, Warren Stevens, warned Ministers that high electricity prices are deterring investment from the world's strongest economy and our closest, historically closest ally. And then we have closest ally. And then we have ExxonMobil's UK chairman, Paul Greenwood, who said that the company had spent months warning the government about the risks of the government about the risks of the plant, only to be ignored.

He said these are deliberate government policies that are government policies that are undermining us. My Lords, when global companies start talking like that, something is seriously, seriously wrong. This closure also lands at the same moment that make lands at the same moment that make UK published a report warning that surging energy costs and cumulative taxes are threatening the future of Britain's industrial base. Ministers have no excuses left. These are the results of decisions made in Whitehall a slow motion, sustained act of industrial self-harm.

Even unite and GMB, hardly allies of these benches, warned Ministers that their ban on new oil and gas development would devastate supply chains and destroy skilled jobs. And when both employers and unions are saying the same thing, it seems that only this government could fail to hear it. And what exactly has this achieved for the environment? Nothing, because now we simply import more oil and gas instead of producing it ourselves. Meanwhile, the Minister in the other place, the Secretary of State for net zero posts on X, claiming that bills remain high due to fossil fuel dependence.

Yet Ofgem has confirmed that policy costs are the major driver. My Lords Ministers can no longer hide from the consequences of their own decisions. We have major international investors describing the UK as mismanaged and uninvestable. South Africa's richest woman called Britain a scary country, saying she wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. And when global investors are talking about the UK in those terms, something has gone profoundly wrong. My Lords, as we said during the debate a few weeks ago, high energy costs, new unemployment burdens looming from the employment rights bill, plus scatter brained and ideological policies coming out of DESNZ.

All of this is squeezing the life out of British industry. So I asked the Minister directly, will the government now reverse its ban on North Sea oil and gas? Will it stop pouring unaffordable subsidies into wind and solar while heavy industry collapses under the weight of energy costs? Or is the government determined to preside over a full scale de-industrialisation? My Lords, British workers, British industries and British communities deserve a lot better than this. They deserve a government that listens, supports industry and understands growth, and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is failing on all three counts. Lord Sharma. My Lords. This is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. And just as the noble Lord Sharpe said, our thoughts go to Sharpe said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of. Coming to seek to find ways of. Coming to terms with the blow. And the closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures.

The companies of living pressures. The companies talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some. But what about contractors and the and the wider supply chain? As far as I'm aware, supply chain? As far as I'm aware, no taskforce has yet been set up to manage this. So can the Minister please update your Lordships' House please update your Lordships' House on how the wider workforce will be helped as, as as this crisis for them bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and that is nearly 500 miles away in in Hampshire.

So 500 miles away in in Hampshire. So can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate, and what is the government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high quality jobs located for those who can't move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family more generally? My Lords, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support. But there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.

Moving on, there has not unexpectedly been some finger pointing. Indeed, we just saw some trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble for five years. It's been making a loss for five years, so if it is economic and trading environments that's causing the closure, both this government and the last government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All of the products made at Mossmoran are exported to the EU.

Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant's demise? And given there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade? This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and the UK wide manufacturing. And it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator is, or seems to be, a combination of long standing, depressed demand, alongside a policy environment, and particularly the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy.

Energy was a problem when noble Lord Sharpe was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today's news, confirming the 420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK's most energy intensive industries. But this is jammed. Tomorrow, my Lords, it does not start until 2027. There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British
19:38
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, as it's called, comes into effect as it's called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which benefit which about which benefit which businesses will benefit from this new support and how it will, and so new support and how it will, and so can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be, deciding which businesses and which sectors qualify for this, for this subsidy. qualify for this, for this subsidy.

So what specific steps now are the are the government doing for the here and now? We understand what's happening in 2027. And we've seen long look into the future. That's called the industrial strategy. But what is happening now because we need to find a way of making sure that there's long term investment in our, our, our manufacturing and in our, our, our manufacturing and chemicals industry. My Lords, the Scottish Government has a responsibility for the economy in responsibility for the economy in and jobs in Scotland.

So why no meaningful mention of them? In the meaningful mention of them? In the statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when they were had with the Scottish Government, and how the the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward. To conclude, my Lords, energy intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as it was indeed under the noble Lord Sharpe.

As much as 400 400% higher than in America. Closures like Grangemouth, Lindsay and now Mossmoran risk forcing downstream operation operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain's once dominant chemical industry is is continuing to suffer. The UK's chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association. So 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales, with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.

Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country's critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the government wants to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The noble. Lords for their statements today, and I entirely agree that our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I entirely agree that our thoughts are. With the. The. The workers and the families.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The workers and the families. Of those affected by the closure. Whilst this government inherited a precarious economic position from a precarious economic position from the last administration, it is imperative that we continue to move forward and we we pursue the right pro-innovation, pro-business. Policies which generate growth. We were disappointed to learn of Exxon's announcement to close their Fife ethylene plant. This follows months of engagement with the months of engagement with the company and a commitment to explore all the opportunities to retain the.

Site's operations. However, it's my Site's operations. However, it's my understanding that there was no credible buyer for the plant. Of course, if there are potential purchasers who wish to explore what is possible, government would be happy to work with them. We'd be happy to find a solution, whether that's the ongoing operation of the plant or repurposing the site for
19:42
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

plant or repurposing the site for new new uses. As my. noble Lords. Will know, the government and ExxonMobil had been discussing the ExxonMobil had been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, and officials endeavoured to meet with Exxon every week since August. This weekend, last, Ministers from across government have been in contact with the company to discuss this decision, and I expect there will be further conversations over the coming months. The Minister for industry was clear that the government is prepared to step in and support industry where it's feasible to do so, as we have with Harland and Wolff, Tata Steel and most recently, British Steel.

Sadly, in this instance, government is not able to provide the support without a fundamentally sound business proposition. No, no intervention would represent value for money without one. We know that it is a concerning time for those affected, and that is why our focus is now on supporting the workforce. The Minister for industry met with unite to explore options for supporting the affected employees, and Exxon are taking steps to mitigate the impact of this closure decision, as any responsible company would, with some employees being retained to support the decommissioning of the site and others being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon's other assets in Southampton.

In terms of the precise allocation of those roles, those discussions are still ongoing and I cannot confirm at this present time exactly how many people have decided to make the transition to other sites. Regrettably, this fall, short of supporting the entire workforce in finding new employment, which is why the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in supporting those impacted, and officials in the department are also in contact with representatives from Fife Council and the Scottish Government, and together working on a taskforce to provide further support today that my right hon.

Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, met with the Scottish Government, the Fife local authority, to convene the first of those discussions, and will continue with that task force over the coming months. But I would like to stress that this closure is not representative of UK industry as a whole. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are challenging and channelling support to the eight growth sectors of the economy including clean energy, defence, advanced manufacturing all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong and far from being uninvestable.

Since July we have seen over £250 billion of investment committed to the UK, alongside 450,000 jobs only only, only, only recently have we seen further investment into the AI growth zones and into small modular reactors. So both both Lords talked about energy costs. My noble Lords know that bringing down energy costs for British businesses is a key part of our industrial strategy, although it's important to note that electricity costs were not a major factor behind this site's closure, we're pressing ahead with unprecedented support for our energy intensive industries so they can properly compete and win in the global economy.

Last month, we pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses and sectors like steel, cement and glass and chemicals. This discount will slash costs for a whole host of businesses, not just in England but across the UK. We know that around 550 of our most energy intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April, thanks to this one change alone. And to that end, our new British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, announced for consultation today, will reduce electricity costs for over 7000 eligible manufacturing businesses.

We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt hour, or up to 25% from April 2027. And in terms of the areas that will cover, that will be foundational and frontier as defined in the industrial strategy and that that is subject to further consultation as as set out in the papers today. I just wanted to finish. I just wanted to also talk about the point about engaging and working with the devolved government. The Scottish Government has been heavily involved in the ExxonMobil discussions with meetings at the highest level, and I would like to thank my colleagues there and in the UK government who have been engaging on this issue for such a long period of time, trying to find a way forward.

We will continue to work constructively together to support the hard working employees of the five plant and ensure they are fully supported over the coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

weeks and months. My Lords, last week.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, last week. Was another sad one for the UK oil and petrochemicals industry and the company, employees. Contractors and general supply chain. Relying on it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on it. This imminent closure of Mossmoran is an addition to both. Mossmoran is an addition to both. Grangemouth and refineries. What comes next, I ask? There isn't much left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

left. Mr. Greenwood. mentioned. That there were four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reasons why. This plant, mossmorran, is. Being closed, but. I will concentrate on just one. Due to time, the decline of a cheap and abundant source of ethane from the North Sea, we know that there's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the North Sea, we know that there's remaining. In the. North Sea, but this government has increased the levels of has increased the levels of taxation in many various ways on the producers to prohibit and to the producers to prohibit and to prohibit the making any money. So making them less competitive and
19:47
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
making them less competitive and secondly, in preventing any more licences being issued in this basin. This has a snowball effect of closing the North Sea down, reducing a revenue stream to the Exchequer, seeing the worst workforce continue to fall, but by inference increasing hydrocarbon imports from overseas, where the job numbers go from strength to strength, my Lords, equally important is the significantly increasing carbon emissions on a global scale. Just because the imports arrive in the UK emissions free does not mean that we're not responsible for the increase over those admitted emitted from our own production, which is significantly less.

The production continues elsewhere in the world, and the subsequent transport for our use is more emission intensive. With the noble Lady, the Minister, agree with me that we must therefore ensure the continued and increased flow of North Sea hydrocarbon production, rather than this country having to increasingly purchase product from overseas. This would keep the significant but rapidly reducing onshore and offshore oil and gas industry alive for the foreseeable future and more importantly, keeping the remaining jobs secure. My Lords, electricity generation, green or otherwise, is not going to satisfy our energy needs for many decades, if ever to come.

And so why does this government continue to penalise this nation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think that we are coordinating the scale up of industries which will shape the future of the North Sea, which goes future of the North Sea, which goes as far as wider offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen as well. And the government has committed over £9.4 government has committed over £9.4 billion in investment to carbon capture, with a total of 22 billion for hydrogen and carbon capture. for hydrogen and carbon capture. This parliament.

That is a huge positive step for our our economy, positive step for our our economy, for jobs in the North Sea and the for jobs in the North Sea and the Clean Energy Jobs Plan, which has £20 million of funding from the UK £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish governments, will support oil and gas workers in training to access the training to access the opportunities in clean energy to create jobs of the future. And just create jobs of the future.

And just in terms of the the reduction of. Over the over the last years, I mean, there has been a 75% reduction in oil and gas production reduction in oil and gas production between 1999 and and 2024. So this is a very long term trend of, of of of availability of carbon products from, from North Sea and not something that has just happened in recent times. My Lords, I refer my Lords to my register of of interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome. The statement by the Minister in responding, I think, to Lord Fox, about the establishment of a task force, which has happened since the force, which has happened since the statement was made in the Commons or the other place. I should or the other place. I should declare an interest. As a former industry Minister in Scotland, where there has been experience over the past 25 years of how do you respond to closures such as these and those sorts of task
19:51
19:52
19:54
19:55
19:55
19:56
19:57
19:58
19:58
19:59
19:59
20:00
None Portrait
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page