Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as the mover of the original Amendment 33, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the substance of that amendment. I therefore agree with Motion A to agree to the Commons’ further amendment. I heartily endorse what Minister Pennycook said in the other place on Monday: it is now about getting on with using the powers that are available under this and previous legislation. I wish the Government well in that endeavour.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, all through the debates on the Bill, we on these Benches have agreed with the principle of what the Government are seeking to do, but had concerns about the balance being created between the necessity to improve construction times, especially with infrastructure, and bearing in mind the needs of our environment and our heritage in particular. We do not think the balance is right at the minute, but we agree that the Bill must proceed.

On Motion A, we wholeheartedly agree with the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which we have supported throughout the Bill. With that, I thank the Minister for all her helpful discussions on the Bill and hope that this is the last we have to say about it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire, which is a large unitary authority with both a metro mayor and a combined authority, I have both an interest to declare and experience to share.

This has been a great debate to be part of and to listen to, because the passion for local governance and local democratic government has been apparent throughout the afternoon. Many issues have been raised that are important locally, such as cattle grids—who knew?—and taxi and private hire licensing, which is vital for safeguarding. We have heard about different parts of the country, from Cornwall and even Devon to Lincolnshire, Norfolk, the West Midlands and now Yorkshire.

This has been an important debate, but it has had rather a mixed response from various Members across the House. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are completely in favour of the principle of devolution. It is fundamental to our values, as is community empowerment, which should naturally flow from devolution. Unfortunately, the Bill being debated neither encompasses real devolution nor, unfortunately, empowers communities. We on these Benches will strongly support proposals that enable either or both.

At the heart of the chasm that exists between the Liberal Democrat and the Government’s approach to devolution is an understanding of the essential purpose of local government. Successive Governments have viewed local government as simply a necessary local service delivery function. Perhaps that notion has its beginnings in the statement made by Sir Keith Joseph, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the early Thatcher Government, that local government should outsource all its service delivery, and the council would therefore only need to meet once a year to agree the contracts. Since then, there has been a persistent trend of central government viewing the purpose of local government through that lens.

Nearly 20 years ago, the Lyons report into local government expressed a more positive purpose for local government as being one of place shaping in order to use powers and influence to promote the well-being of a community. Lyons said that that approach was crucial to improving satisfaction through greater local choice and flexibility. It is that wider, more inclusive place-shaping role that we on these Benches support. It follows the long line of great local government reformers and indeed the Localism Act 2011, which introduced the concept of subsidiarity.

It is in that context that Liberal Democrats challenge the basis of the Bill. We support a strategic authority, but it should have greater democratic accountability and not be at the expense of local decisions made locally, where they belong. During this debate, there have been many contributions on Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which establish strategic authorities and the role of mayors. Strategic authorities have an important role to play in place shaping, as we have heard, and both Manchester and the West Midlands have been trailblazers in doing that, but what is not acceptable to those of us who cherish local democratic decision-making is the powers given to a single person over a large area with minimal accountability, minimal community engagement and little involvement of elected local councillors.

The Mayor of West Yorkshire, for example, serves 2.5 million people, and the combined authority consists of, in effect, the five council leaders. Under the Bill, the mayor will have very wide powers to determine a strategy for land use, for example, that will have a significant impact on local communities who will have been denied a genuine opportunity to have their voice heard. Where is the community empowerment in that? Where is the local accountability and local democratic decision-making?

My noble friend Lord Pack has rightly criticised the change to the mayoral electoral system. A supplementary vote fails the test of enabling the candidate with the widest support to be elected. Why has this system been chosen when others, which are more effective at ensuring the election of a candidate with the widest support, have been rejected?

A further undermining of transparency is the power the Bill provides for a mayor to appoint up to seven unelected commissioners. As it stands, this enables a mayor to appoint their mates to these roles—as has apparently already happened in some mayoral authorities, including one not far from where I live. At the very least, there need to be requirements in the Bill for an open process of appointment through a selection panel.

The extension of mayoral powers is far remote from the notion of community empowerment. For example, the potential for civil enforcement powers to be undertaken by the mayor removes them from local involvement. Further, the power of a mayor to take a planning decision away from the local planning authority is at complete odds with local democracy. I have read nothing in the Bill that explains how a strategic planning decision will be defined. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.

Part 3 is a further attack on local democracy and accountability as it provides powers to the Secretary of State to merge councils into unitary ones. What is not sufficiently discussed is that the key criteria for a unitary council is to be its population. The number of people will determine the geography of the new unitary councils, not whether places coexist and work well with each other, or whether it is the will of the people. Forced amalgamations fail. The council on which I served is a prime example. Even after 50 years, there are regular heartfelt calls for its abolition, because it forced together the great towns of Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley, when they do not have much in common. That is the danger of forcing councils together in this way.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that there are elements of the Bill that are welcome, such as the creation of the local audit office. That is a very important move. Since the Audit Commission was abolished, there has been a lack of oversight and guidance for local audit, so I welcome that clause. Clause 58 is important, because it gives a nod towards neighbourhood governance, although there is no clarity about what that might mean. In any case, Clause 58 provides a power for the Secretary of State, for crying out loud, to make the decision on what constitutes a neighbourhood unit.

If we really believe in devolution, neighbourhood governance should be decided by the local council area, not the Secretary of State. If there is one thing that I hope the Minister will help us to change, it is that. That is at the heart of what devolution should be: local people determining what neighbourhood governance should look like and what the area should be, not the Secretary of State, who surely has better things to decide on. That is just one example of a ministerial power to override local decisions, which are unfortunately peppered throughout the Bill.

This is not real devolution. There is no fiscal devolution in the Bill either, which, as many Members have said in their contributions, makes devolution a rather empty promise, given that mayors will probably have to compete for resources from the Treasury.

At its best, local government is greater than the sum of its parts. It is what matters most to the daily lives of people. The plea from these Benches is for the Government to start appreciating the power of vibrant, well-funded local government that enhances the lives of the people who live there and the place in which they live. During the next stages of the Bill, we on these Benches will challenge the Government to look through a local lens and provide real devolution and real community empowerment.

Local Elections

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. All local government elections that are scheduled for 2026 will go ahead unless there are exceptional circumstances. These elections, which are inaugural elections for four new mayors in the areas concerned, have not taken place before, and my colleagues have taken the opportunity to reflect on the most effective way of ensuring that those mayoral institutions are best placed to deliver.

We know that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we are seeking to facilitate the establishment of those foundational strategic authorities to build the local capacity and collaboration that is needed ahead of accessing mayoral powers. We think that this will make them stronger in the long run and make sure that those authorities are built on firm foundations. That is why the decision has been taken to have those mayoral elections in 2028. My colleague, Minister Fahnbulleh, spoke to all local authorities on 3 December.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the move to compulsory unitary authorities, at the same time as creating mayoral authorities, is clearly causing confusion and delay. Cancelling elections denies electors their fundamental right. Councillors remaining in office for seven years when elected for a four-year term is simply not acceptable. Can the Minister set out in detail, in writing if necessary, a clear timetable going forward for all those authorities affected?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We must not conflate the two things. The devolution programme, which is working at pace, and the local government reorganisation process are running side by side, but they are not the same thing. That is why the decision has been taken to postpone mayoral elections in the four priority areas until 2028. The other two areas in the priority programme will have their mayoral elections in 2027, as they had already requested and as had already been decided. On other elections taking place, elections due in 2026 in county councils in those areas concerned will take place. Three of the areas are elected by thirds anyway, so they will have their elections as usual, and the district council elections that are due to take place in 2026 and 2027 will take place as scheduled.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendments 31A and 31B, which is very similar, as she said, to Amendment 31, which I proposed.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is a practical transport expert—he knows how to mend a bus—as I hope I am, although his expertise is wider than mine, which is based on taxis. I hope that he will agree that success does not come from changing the law alone but will come when disabled people are not limited in their use of charging systems for electric cars. Today, no doubt, there are people struggling with chargers that have steps that could be designed out and cables that are too heavy. Success can be declared when charging infrastructure is no longer a barrier to the purchase of a car for a disabled person.

Again, I apologise for the inelegant way in which this amendment was proposed at Third Reading; an amendment in Committee would have been more elegant. However, I am glad that this necessary amendment has been made. I look forward to the regulations being promulgated with lightning speed, and actual accessible charging points being seen widely even more quickly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in this first group of amendments, I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the amendment about accessible electric vehicle charging points that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, just spoke to. That is really good news.

Of the other three amendments that we are thinking about, two concern reservoirs—building them and what their impact will be. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about ensuring that the statutory requirements to protect our heritage are considered in full in the planning application for a new reservoir. The other, from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned about whole villages being drowned. Then we have the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is anxious that we build more reservoirs, so we have a bit of a dilemma here.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this Bill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed on Report to provide even greater support for those heritage sites and buildings that may be destroyed to create a reservoir—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has pointed out, since third parties, even companies based abroad, may now be able to build reservoirs. They may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country. That is a great shame, and if the noble Lord wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these Benches would support him.

I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says about her Motion C1 and whether she wishes again to test the opinion of the House on that one.

On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I thought the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance that the Government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low-hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about. That seemed perfectly acceptable, given that a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs. As we discovered in Derbyshire when the Toddbrook one failed, volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs are breached. With those remarks, I look forward to the comments from the Conservative Front Bench.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, before turning to the specifics of the amendments before us, I will restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We recognise the legislation’s importance to the Government and their desire to see it completed in time for the Budget. From the outset, we on these Benches have worked diligently and constructively, through the usual channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in the Observer yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, endorse Motion F. The national scheme of delegation has to strike the right balance between going far enough and not too far, which is not without difficulty. I urge the Minister and her officials to bear in mind the imperative of avoiding a proliferation of different thresholds. We have the national scheme of delegation thresholds; we have the 150 dwelling threshold announced a few days ago in relation to the exercise of potential haul-in powers to prevent refusals; and we also have coming down the line potential thresholds in relation to standardised Section 106. What I have been hearing from developers in the last few days is that the potential range and proliferation of thresholds—because we also have the EIA thresholds—make decision-making quite difficult in how to calibrate their developments, so the simpler it is, the better.

The Minister also mentioned the forthcoming NPPF consultation. Is she able to indicate when the final version of the new NPPF will be published? I appreciate that she cannot give a precise indication. There is anecdotal evidence that during the consultation on the last NPPF some applications were put on hold because applicants wanted to wait to see the final version. Indeed, there is some evidence that during the passage of this Bill 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—we hope that it will be fairly quickly—the post-consultation process will take to produce the new NPPF, the better.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the positive engagement we have had during the Bill, where compromise has been reached on a number of very important issues. It shows that all the hours we have spent discussing and scrutinising the Bill have not been in vain. I am particularly grateful that the Government have seen the light over the requirement of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for an affirmative procedure on the national scheme of delegation. It is an issue on which we on these Benches supported the noble Lord, but we also tabled our own amendments, because we thought it was very important that the first iteration of the national scheme of delegation should be properly and fully scrutinised. We are really pleased that the Government have conceded on that issue.

Fair Funding Review

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important, particularly now, that we support local government, after 14 years of successive funding cuts and the battering it came under from the last Government. Through our funding reforms local authorities will be empowered, as key partners, to meet the housing need and help deliver growth across the country. We will reward local authorities for housebuilding, as they will benefit from additional council tax rates for each new house built in their area over the course of the multi-year period. On business rates, we will keep long-standing incentives so that local authorities continue to be rewarded for growth. Through their fair funding review, the previous Government recognised the need for reform, but they did not deliver. We are making good on this commitment and introducing improvements for the first time since 2013.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has just explained that council tax projections for new homes will not now be included in the financial assessment for council income. However, those councils with high deprivation and low economic growth are likely to have below average rates of housebuilding too. Can the Minister explain why the Government are willing to penalise those areas once again?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not agree with the presumption in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. For too long, an outdated council funding system, based on decades-old data, has entrenched the inequality of which she speaks—we all know that—with those least able to raise council tax and business rates given less favourable funding settlements. This has left some councils on a cliff edge and communities in deprived areas facing service cuts and rising bills, as well as being unable to deliver the economic growth and housing that we know those communities need. Some councils in less deprived areas have benefited disproportionately, building up their reserves. Our reforms will reverse this injustice and make sure that councils will be funded fairly, enabling them to deliver for their communities on services and on the growth that we all want to see.

Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 15 October.

The Government have identified data centres as essential infrastructure, necessary to support, grow and develop the UK’s economy. Data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology, and it is increasingly critical for public service delivery and for how citizens interact with each other and the state. That is why data centres are crucial to delivering on the UK’s industrial strategy, and why the Government designated data centres as critical national infrastructure in September 2024, putting their loss or compromise on the same footing with essential services such as energy, water, transport and other critical national infrastructure sectors.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including digital infrastructure such as data centres. Following the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning system reforms consultation last year, the Government announced plans alongside the publication of the revised NPPF in December of that year to enable certain projects within high technology and data-driven industries to be capable, on request of the developer of a project, of being directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects process.

These regulations deliver on that announcement by effectively adding data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects—such as manufacturing, distribution, sport and tourism—that are set out in the Schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013. This would mean that certain proposed data centre projects could be capable, on request, of being directed by the Secretary of State to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008, rather than having to proceed through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 route.

It is important to stress that the regulations do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route—far from it. The regulations just provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they so wish, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process, rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act route.

I also wish to make it clear that, having received a qualifying request from a developer under Section 35ZA, the Secretary of State could decide to direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they considered that the project or proposed project was of national significance and met the other requirements in Section 35. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out both the national policy and the policy framework for decision-making for data centres. It will also set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as being of national significance and, therefore, capable of meeting the requirements of Section 35. DSIT aims to publish the draft national policy statement for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny shortly after these regulations come into force.

To summarise, what we are discussing today is the mechanism by which certain data centre proposals—those deemed to be of national significance—may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision on whether to give a direction, to opt in to a different planning route, the NSIP consenting process route, rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act planning process. The SI before us enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State giving a direction to that effect.

I hope that the Committee agrees that these changes are sensible steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which, as she said, enables the development of data centres using the NSIP regime. As Liberal Democrats, we understand and support this in principle. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report raises important concerns. These are that

“the ability of affected local communities to make representations”

with regard to a data centre application via the NSIP process seems to be curtailed by using the NSIP regime.

As the Minister will know, I have raised this issue many times throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is, I believe, a serious concern—one that I share with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. The reason is that there will no longer be a statutory requirement for a pre-application consultation with the affected community. Consequently, communities may not be aware of an application and may not be able to register in time to voice their concerns at a hearing.

As well as the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have the following questions for the Minister. First, this statutory instrument would have made more sense if the promised national policy statement had been introduced, even in draft form. It is much more difficult to scrutinise this SI without the policy statement. That was also raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, so when is that likely to be published?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that national planning policy, such as green belt policy, will be fully observed in relation to the siting of data centres?

Thirdly, do the Government intend to develop a spatial energy strategy to create a framework within which data centres can be developed? On the face of it, that seems adjacent to the purpose of this SI, but data centres consume a considerable amount of energy and, unless there is a spatial energy strategy, having too many data centres in one place could put pressure on the national energy system. For example, the existing data centres currently need 1.4 gigawatts of energy. As a country, I think we produce about 30 gigawatts a day, so data centres will use a big chunk of that energy.

Fourthly, given the energy that data centres use, they will produce a lot of heat. Either they will have to negate this in some way, or, as I would prefer, local heat networks will have to be set up in conjunction with data centres so that domestic users nearby can use free energy, because they would be doing a good deed for the data centres by using this waste heat. A great number of homes could benefit—up to a million, it is estimated—by using this energy that is currently being produced.

The fifth and final question—I apologise that I have so many questions—concerns the water usage of data centres. There is anxiety that the huge use of water by data centres, especially if they are developed in water-stressed areas, will result in even greater pressure on water supplies for domestic and other commercial uses. Can the Minister confirm that any new data centres will be required to have what is called a closed loop system of water use? I think that is self-explanatory.

What investigation has been undertaken into the use of what is described as grey water? For instance, because of sustainable urban drainage, many sites now have to put in attenuation tanks in order to take the run-off and hold it back before distributing it to the natural networks. It would be innovative if attenuation tank water could be part of the closed loop system, using grey water to cool down data centres, with the heat exported to households; it would be a win-win-win.

I know that the Minister will be very grateful for all the questions I have asked. If I have asked for answers that she does not quite have at her fingertips today, I would be grateful if she could drop me a note with the answers. With that, we Liberal Democrats support this SI in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate on the SI. I shall try to address all their questions; if I miss any, I am sure that they will let me know, and I shall respond in writing to them.

First, to pick up on the issue of the publication of the national policy statement, which I know is a concern that both noble Lords have expressed, we do not anticipate any significant gap between the SI coming into force and the publication of the draft national policy statement. If for some reason the gap is more pronounced, any projects subsequently directed into the NSIP regime will be considered in the same way as any other business or commercial project under Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008.

When the NPS arrives, it will set out which types of data centre infrastructure are considered of national significance—I think that is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised. That includes details of any thresholds and parameters, such as size or other relevant factors, as well as relevant policy background—including the needs case for data centres. The national policy statement is currently under development and testing. Given the time it may take to comply with statutory requirements for the designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate to lay the statutory instrument in advance, because we know how quickly this industry is moving and we want to make it possible to deliver data centres as quickly as we can.

The proposed national policy statement for data centres will be the very first national policy statement to be prepared covering a prescribed type of business or commercial project. We are working on that at speed. If there is no national policy statement in place, the Planning Act 2008 will apply, as I said. I hope that that clarifies when we are expecting that to come forward.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also mentioned grid capacity. He knows that I have been working very closely with DESNZ colleagues—I do not have the net zero brief anymore, but I continue to take a great interest in this. My colleagues in DESNZ understand that grid capacity is not just an issue around data centres; it affects the whole construction industry. We need to move at pace to make sure that we have grid capacity to meet needs going forward. DESNZ is actively working on that, and I am sure it will make further announcements in future on that subject.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned some issues around the environmental sustainability of the impacts of data centres. They are important, and, of course, it is important that we make sure that the NSIP regime does not diminish them, as in comparison with the TCPA regime. Both planning regimes are governed by the same underlying principles to ensure that environmental effects from the proposals that come forward are identified and considered clearly as part of the application and decision-making process. The underlying legal and policy frameworks are different. For NSIPs, where a national policy statement has effect, the first port of call for decisions is in the context of the relevant national policy statement. Under the TCPA regime, local authorities decide planning applications in accordance with the local development plan, as we all know. That is the substantive difference between the two, but it should not undermine the environmental aspects being taken into consideration.

The extent to which a proposed data centre NSIP would have environmental impacts, both positive and negative—including water and energy consumption, noise pollution, waste generation, land use, visual impacts and location—would be part of the consideration of the NSIP during its examination and its determination by the Secretary of State. Prescribed statutory bodies, such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and the Canal & River Trust, play an important role in that examination. They must be notified of accepted applications and invited to a preliminary meeting, and they are entitled to make oral representations at hearings.

Environmental impacts are considered as part of the development consent order process, and the 2017 environmental impact assessment regulations set out the procedures for determining whether a proposed development requires the applicant to undertake an environmental impact assessment. Many large business or commercial projects, which will now include data centres, can be caught by the EIA regulations. An EIA is a process where the likely significant environmental effects are assessed and taken into account, and, where applicable, an applicant must submit an environmental statement as part of their application to the Planning Inspectorate.

The emerging national policy statement on data centres, like any national policy statement that is being developed, will need to be supported by an appraisal of sustainability which takes account of the environmental, social and economic effects of designating an NPS and reasonable alternatives, sets out mitigation and enhancement measures and helps inform the preparation of the national policy statement to promote sustainable development. Habitats regulations also apply to an NPS on habitats sites.

I have gone into that in some detail because I want noble Lords to understand that there is significant environmental protection, regardless of which route through planning data centres take.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned heat. Data centres produce significant heat; the technology exists to capture that and use it in district heating networks or to meet significant demand. I hope that, increasingly, as this industry develops, there will be more creative and imaginative uses for that heat. There is potential for it to be captured and used for further benefit and there have been successful examples of using data centre heat for hospitals and homes. A current UK example, if she is interested, is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. That is very good news. The Greater London Authority is developing a pilot to test heating up to 10,000 homes and at least one hospital—Middlesex—from London-based data centres. We are engaging with developers and operators to determine whether further interventions are necessary and appropriate to encourage that sort of take-up of recycling the heat.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt. Capturing the so-called waste heat from data centres and using it for the benefit of businesses or households nearby is important, both environmentally and in helping local communities to find acceptance for a great big building in their midst.

I should like the Minister to say that there will be a requirement to use the technology to capture the heat that is wasted and to use it appropriately to provide for hospitals, or whatever, and households as well. That is what I should like to hear because there has to be a bit of payback for these great big data centres being built across the country, and that is one of them. I have not heard the word “requirement” yet and I should like to.

London Boroughs: Financial Support

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That has to be done at the next fiscal event. The Government remain committed to keeping all taxes and elements of the local government finance system under review.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant interests as a councillor. The recent statistics published by the Government have pinpointed the areas of the country that suffer from immense deprivation. The current funding formula does not properly recompense those councils with the highest levels of deprivation. Do the Government intend to redistribute in order to help the councils across the country, including in London, that have the highest levels of deprivation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope the work we have done so far will illustrate to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that we are committed to improving how we assess need to make sure that central government funding is distributed fairly to the places that need it the most. Our proposals use the best available evidence so that we can more effectively capture variations in demand for services. A particular bugbear for me over the years—I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard me say this—is that we need to identify in local authorities pockets of high deprivation within generally more affluent areas. We continue to explore and review the new data that comes forward on measures of deprivation, and a final decision on the inclusion of the 2025 index of multiple deprivation will be made in the autumn, when we set out our funding plans for local government.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

The Prime Minister tells us that he wants to follow international treaties and international law. He has said it not once, but a hundred times. Both the treaty and the law are clear: Clause 90 is not needed. Let us see whether his Government are a builder or a blocker, whether they are sincere about streamlining regulations, or whether they will have our economy stuck in the mud.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, seek to remove Clause 90 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. These Benches are not supportive of these amendments. While we appreciate the arguments that have been made about streamlining and simplifying the legislative framework, it is more important to recognise the significance of Ramsar sites and to treat them in the same category as European sites when it comes to environmental protection.

These wetlands—there are 176 designated sites in the UK—are often of extraordinary ecological value, supporting biodiversity that is not only nationally but internationally important. To remove the relevant provisions at this stage would risk sending the wrong signal about our priorities and would weaken the coherence of the overall environmental protections.

The Government’s goal all along has been to preserve sites that are of environmental importance. The arguments about Part 3 of the Bill have not entirely gone the way we had hoped, but they have gone a long way towards raising the importance of the environment as far as the planning system goes. We are keen to uphold the value of Ramsar sites, alongside other protected areas, and to dismiss the arguments made by those who, on one hand, say that we need more houses on these wetland sites, but, on the other hand, argue for other sites—perhaps in the green belt or designated sites—not to be built on. Let us be clear: the environment comes first, and protecting biodiversity and our precious environmental heritage is of key importance to us.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 208 and 231A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. These may appear as technical provisions, with Clause 90 dealing with temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase and Schedule 6 making consequential changes to Part 3 of the Bill, but, as we have heard from the speakers so far, their combined efforts risk damaging the very housing and infrastructure goals that this legislation is seeking to advance.

The Bill, as currently drafted, extends the legal obligations of the habitats regulations to Ramsar sites. In practice, this means further restrictions on housing development and a fresh layer of uncertainty for local planning authorities and developers alike. The result, as my noble friend Lord Roborough warned, is that a Bill meant to get Britain building risks doing totally the opposite by tying up housing delivery in yet more red tape and delay. This point cannot be overstated: the country faces a housing crisis—not a crisis of ambition, but a crisis of delivery. By removing Schedule 6, we would avoid further complexity in the already overburdened environmental assessment framework, a system that too often paralyses local authorities and developers in costly uncertainty rather than securing real gains for nature.

The Government’s own target of 1.5 million new homes will not be met if planning reforms continue to tangle it up with excessive regulation and unintended consequences. Of course, environmental protection must remain a central consideration in planning, but, as my noble friend rightly observed, the small nut being cracked by the sledgehammer of Part 3 has now been shown to be even smaller. The recent ruling to which he referred has already resolved many of the issues these provisions sought to address. What remains, therefore, is unnecessary bureaucracy and an additional drag on housing delivery.

However, I reiterate that the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment in the CG Fry case has now shifted the status quo. Following the judgment, Clause 90 and Schedule 6 will have the perverse effect of blocking development rather than facilitating it. This surely cannot be the Government’s intention; we are minded, therefore, to seek to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 208 is called if the Government have nothing further to say on this issue.

These amendments are not anti-environmental. They are proportionate, pro-clarity and, most importantly, pro-housing. They seek to ensure that this Bill does what it says on the tin: to plan and deliver the infrastructure and homes that this country so desperately needs. I urge the Minister to look again at Clause 90 and Schedule 6. Are they truly necessary to achieve the Bill’s goals or are they, as the evidence increasingly suggests, just obstacles in their delivery?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 232 relates to mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords will recall a debate in Committee about this precise point. To remind noble Lords, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presently in the other place, the Government have proposed that the powers available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation should be provided to all mayors of established strategic authorities—I think that is correct. Noble Lords will also recall that I previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July, so I was pleased to see that the Government were proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where Part 4, which we have now reached, is devoted to development corporations. It was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and, I hope, adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.

As a simple way of bringing that forward, I took Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and transposed it into what would become a new schedule to this Bill. I anticipate that it is not the Government’s intention to disagree with the content of Amendment 232, since they wrote it; however, they appear to be set on resisting the idea that it should be included in this Bill and, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, be brought into force rapidly.

As it happens, since Committee, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee has had the opportunity to consider Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill and has not amended it, so there is no requirement for us to think of it having changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that Bill Committee, it will not be returned to in substance on Report. I do not anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text from what we see here now.

I put it once more to Ministers, but will not press it because what would be the point? It is their Bill, their language, their schedule that they can have now, in my view—and why would they not? It seems to me that most mayors, certainly the ones I have spoken to or their representatives, would like the powers sooner rather than later.

Quite early in the new year, probably before the English devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones. These are precisely the issues which are the subject of this part of this Bill. I put it to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into force at an earlier stage. I beg to move

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding mayoral development corporations. The purpose of Part 4 of this Bill is to create a more flexible, and perhaps more robust, framework for development corporations. The existing way that development corporations work has limitations with regard to some of the development that all of us seek—transport infrastructure, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has helpfully reminded us that this selfsame wording is in the devolution and empowerment Bill, currently going through its stages at the other end of the building, so those of us who will have the joy of debating that Bill, when it comes here, will be coming back to this issue.

The main concern we have, though, is about the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor and the rather narrow representations of the leaders of the constituent authorities—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister. This is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be dismissed. This amendment could grant substantial planning control over designated areas by placing the decision-making at the mayoral level, with its minimal approach to democratic engagement and consultation. While mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level.

Amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it is achieved at the expense of local democratic involvement and, crucially, would lose having a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal, but it bypasses local democracy.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s expertise on development corporations is, as ever, formidable, and the concerns he raises deserve full and careful consideration. This amendment speaks to the wider question surrounding the Government’s devolution agenda, particularly the potential to give metro mayors the tools they need to deliver housing projects, attract private investment and cut through the bureaucratic fragmentation that so often stifles local ambitions. In many ways, it would build upon the principles set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and the work that we have done collectively to champion place-based solutions to the challenges that this country faces. As my noble friend says: equality for mayors.

I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment. It is clearly defined and purpose driven. However, to sensibly empower metro mayors or development corporations further, the Government must provide clarity on their plans for local government reorganisation. Without this clarity we risk legislating into a vacuum, creating overlapping authorities and confusion where coherence is needed. On these Benches, we strongly support greater local oversight and a faster route to regeneration, but the real obstacle remains the Government’s opaque approach to LGR. Until there is a clear framework for how local government structures will interact with devolved authorities and combined counties, progress will be piecemeal at best. The Government must work this out, and quickly. We are all waiting for clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.

To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is quite a wide-ranging group of amendments, and fairly disparate at that. I will first briefly focus on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In Committee he raised those issues about the publication of public notices, with which I had, and continue to have, some sympathy.

The sad demise of the printed local newspaper means that fewer and fewer people will have access to the public notices. This is partly in reference to Amendment 250, because where would people read the notice about Wimbledon Park or any other site of that sort? I am sympathetic to the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes in his amendment.

Moving to Amendments 242 and 243 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I remember the long debates we had on this very issue during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I recall that it was the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who passed the levelling-up Bill, now Act, and included in it the very issue he now wishes to undo.

We have been listening to arguments about growth and economic development, but for many parts of the country, without access to land at affordable prices for the public good, those sorts of developments, such as community health centres and so on, will never come to fruition. We had those arguments on the levelling-up Bill. For me they are still important issues that we ought to respect, so for the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, I am afraid it is a big cross—I cannot support those amendments.

This leads us on to Amendment 250. It is always worth looking through the other lens of an issue of development, or no development, whether it is for the public good, public well-being and economic development, or the lens of the residents who live in the area. I have used that theme throughout discussions on this Bill. It is very important to those of us on these Benches that the views of local people who are affected by a development, be it a national strategic infrastructure project, a local planning application, mayoral development corporation plans or this issue, should and must be at the heart of those decisions.

What happens on the land affects their lives. It might be that the development is beneficial but, unless you take local people with you, it will not be, because they will constantly oppose it. I hear the legal arguments, but let us listen to people. I have been a local councillor for many years, and one thing I know for certain is that if you try to impose a decision on people—certainly in Yorkshire, anyway; I do not know about the rest of the country—and say, “It’s to do with the law. This is what’s been agreed. It’s bound to be good for you”, they will make their voice heard loud and strong and long. You need to take people with you on these big issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 241. Amendment 240 is a return to the debate that we had about the issues of transparency and the right of landowners to be fully informed of the potential scale of a project. It would insert a new clause after Clause 106, creating a duty to declare other approaches to purchase or lease land in the vicinity. Proposed new subsection (2) states that that declaration

“must include whether the combined amount of land … will be submitted for application as a nationally significant infrastructure project”,

while proposed new subsection (3) provides a definition of what is meant by “in the vicinity” in this context; namely, anything adjoining or within 10 miles of the land intended to be leased or purchased. The amendment would not prevent land purchasing from occurring but would force better practices, bringing in transparency and accountability to the process for potentially very large projects.

In Committee, the Minister argued that the amendment could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on development projects. I disagree. I am not asking the developer to provide each potential partner with chapter and verse on other negotiations but simply to indicate that the land in question might form part of a larger project connecting to neighbouring land. That is a simple statement that would not be an onerous burden on developers; it would be a way of ensuring that all of them acted within the spirit of professional behaviour that we would expect, although sadly, as examples given in both Houses during the passage of the Bill have confirmed, that does not take place.

All too often it is the actions of a few that tarnish the reputation of the many, but surely it is only morally right and fair that landowners and the local communities potentially impacted have a true sense of the potential scale of the project being proposed and how it might have a bigger impact beyond the one plot being discussed. Anecdotally, I have heard of a case where the developer failed to notify those selling or leasing their land that they would be part of a big project; when it was discovered, there was considerable anger from the local community, with those who had agreed to lease their land being ostracised. Not only is this therefore the right thing to do, because surely all deals of this kind should be open and transparent, but it is also in the interests of community cohesion. I have since checked this with a land agent, who said that he thought it was eminently sensible.

The Minister referred to the book of reference and how it is available for public view—if indeed anyone knows about it—and that it should list all land and interests in land that may be affected by development. I reiterate a point made by others throughout our discussions: to the general public, development jargon and process is all a bit of a mystery to start with. However, the Minister herself mentioned the problem here: she implied in her Committee response that the book of reference is available for public view only once the application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State. Transparency after the application is too late and not transparent at all.

While some landowners may jump at the chance of being part of a nationally significant project, others may not wish to be. If they do not know what is being proposed, how can they make an informed choice? In this House, surely we should not be enabling corporate underhand behaviour. We need to ensure that consideration is given to those being approached for land with projects and the communities that will all have to live with the consequences.

Amendment 241 requires a similar simple statement, which again has the principles of transparency and good practice at its core. It seeks to prevent land banking, the practice of purchasing undeveloped land and holding it for future development or resale, rather than immediately building on it. Its proposed new subsection (1) would create an obligation on the developer or company to declare whether they held planning permission for similar developments within a 10-mile radius of the new site they were seeking permission to buy or lease. Proposed new subsection (2) would give the power to refuse development if any similar sites identified by proposed new subsection (1) had not been activated for over a year.

I remind the House that we must not conflate housing delivery with granting planning permission. Planning permission will not meet targets if it is not acted on. I will not reiterate all the stats from the debate we had in Committee, but suffice to say that, as another noble Lord highlighted, around four years’ worth of the Government’s current target is sitting in land banks. Better transparency will only help build trust and confidence in what our planning system can deliver.

I was pleased that the Minister expressed that the working paper is looking to see that permissions given are built out as quickly as possible and I suggest that this amendment could only strengthen the incentive for this to happen. It was also mentioned that a form of use it or lose it could be brought about by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Why has this not been kick-started already? Can the Minister give us a timetable in which she hopes that this will be implemented? How many other land banks will be approved before this comes into force? I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for bringing these amendments, particularly Amendment 241. The noble Baroness raised the issue of land banking in Committee and I am pleased that she is raising it again on Report. As she rightly said, land banking is one of the blockers of development. I will repeat one of the stats I gave in Committee: 1.2 million housing units with full planning permission are waiting to be constructed. Those figures are from the ONS. One of the reasons is that developers want to keep prices high and therefore phase development over a sometimes inordinately long timeframe. Indeed, in my own town there is a development of nearly 300 homes that the developer wishes to develop over 10 years, which explains, I think, as much as anything, why this country is short of the housing that it needs.

There are other consequences of land banking, apart from the crucial one of failing to supply the houses that the country needs in a timely way; it also has an impact on local plans. Where developers have full planning permission for all the allocated housing sites in a local plan, they can, and do, argue that they therefore need more sites, sometimes with preference for sites in the green belt, even though there is no intention of beginning, let alone completing, the sites they currently have with full planning permission. That is a really important issue on which I hope the Minister will give some comfort for those of us in local councils. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on these important issues.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson for her constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill, her close attention to its detail and her ambition to improve the legislation in a number of important areas. Amendment 240 needs to be considered carefully; I will be interested to hear what the Minister has on it. Where the total land being assembled could ultimately lead to an application for designation as a nationally significant infrastructure project, there is a real need for greater clarity at an early stage. That would only help to build trust between developers, landowners and local communities, and my noble friend’s proposals rightly highlight that need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of comments. Clearly, my noble friend the Minister will no doubt say that this is outwith the intention and focus of this legislation. I sympathise with that; it is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, as a former distinguished chief exec of the National Health Service, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right to pinpoint that there are some gaps between the needs of health and healthcare and the planning system. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that, as we go forward—we have an NHS Bill coming in the next Session—there will be ways to find that some of the noble Lord’s key points will be embraced in both the planning and the National Health Service system.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I was very pleased to attach my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He raised a wider issue in the debate on what became the levelling-up Act about the need for healthy homes, and he was right to do so. I was saddened that that was not accepted by the Government at the time. He has now brought forward a less demanding amendment.

It is important that, when thinking about development, health and housing, we add the idea of ill-health prevention and the social determinants of health. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned and defined, and how right he is.

Some 14% of homes in our country—3.5 million—are not up to decent housing standard. In my own district, which has areas of quite considerable deprivation, where people are living in poor accommodation, a report says:

“Children in bad housing conditions are more likely to have mental health problems, have respiratory problems, experience long-term ill health and disability, experience slow physical growth and have delayed cognitive development”.


The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has made the case: children deserve better. We ought to support him.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments deal with an issue that goes to the very heart of the Bill’s purpose: how we ensure that our planning system promotes not only economic growth and infrastructure delivery but the health and well-being of our communities. This is not just about a healthy home but about a healthy community, which is so much more than just the bricks and mortar. As has been raised many times throughout the passage of the Bill, we all want to create great communities—a home and that sense of place. Great places are healthy places. That includes warm and comfortable homes, spaces that are safe for outdoor recreation, places to socialise and places where work, leisure facilities and open spaces are easily reachable.

Amendment 247 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to improve health and reduce health inequalities when discharging their planning functions. That is not a radical departure; indeed, it aligns precisely with the language used in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and reflects the Health and Social Care Act 2012 duty on the NHS to reduce health inequalities. It simply asks that the same commitment be applied to planning—one of the most powerful levers for shaping the health of our nation.

Amendment 247A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a valuable and practical dimension for allowing Sport England to make representations to the Secretary of State on how this duty is being met. That is a sensible suggestion, recognising the importance of physical activity and access to sport in promoting both physical and mental health.

Amendment 248 would provide clear definitions, ensuring that “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” are well understood and that this duty is not left to vague interpretation. The drafting captures what we all know to be true: the state of health is shaped as much by housing, transport, safety, employment and access to services as by anything that happens in the health service itself.

A modern planning system must support not only economic growth but social resilience and public health. The pandemic reminded us just how closely our built environment is linked to physical and mental well-being. If we want truly sustainable communities, health must be a core planning outcome, not an afterthought. I therefore urge the Minister to look sympathetically at these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. A code of practice would curb the bad practice that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has very movingly illustrated to us this evening. It is based on the evidence of lived experience of compulsory purchase as currently enforced by commercial agents. I urge the Government to reflect on its merits as driving a far more humane, more swift and less expensive process than the current guidelines achieve. I hope the Government will not reject it simply because they can.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, made a compelling case for the issue which he has reiterated this evening—the necessity for a code of practice to set rules that can be enforced on compulsory purchase order issues. I said in Committee that I had a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord had to say. He has made an even stronger case this evening with the real-life examples that he has quoted to us.

I hope that the Minister can respond very positively this time to the genuine issues that are being raised, with a solution being offered. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has said, we look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this issue is not going to go away unless the Government grasp it and deal with it.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to add our support for Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I would draw a thread through all these debates that we have had on Report on compulsory purchase: this is a necessary tool of government to allow society’s needs to be placed above the individual in a small number of cases where the case is clear-cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, you will be delighted to hear that we are now in the home stretch as we debate just before midnight. I shall speak to the three amendments standing in my name, which, unsurprisingly, deal with matters connected with agricultural tenancies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support, and for the many sympathetic responses to the amendments I have had from all sides of the House from people who recognise the important role tenant farmers play. I refer to my interests in the register as a tenant farmer and the author of the Rock review into agricultural tenancies.

From time to time, landlords of holdings that are subject to agricultural tenancies may secure planning consent for a change of use from agriculture, either through a planning application considered by a local authority, which may also go to appeal, or as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. When that occurs, depending on the nature of the agricultural tenancy, the landlord will be able to secure vacant possession of the holding or part of the holding involved, either by statute or by contract. Agricultural tenancies subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 have a statutory process, set out in Schedule 3 to the Act under what is known as case B, which will allow the landlord to recover possession but paying only a statutory maximum level of compensation, which is just six times the rent being paid by the tenant for the land being removed. That rarely, if ever, comes close to the tenant’s actual commercial loss. For example, if a tenant farmer is paying £65 for an acre of land, compensation for that acre would be just £390. Amendment 253A seeks to redress that by providing a default position, setting out that the compensation will either be a multiple of the rent or the tenant’s actual loss, whichever is the larger.

I take as an example of the problem the case of the tenant arable farmers Rob and Emma Sturdy, who farm on the Fitzwilliam Malton estate in North Yorkshire. The local planning authority rejected a planning application by the solar energy developer Harmony Energy to take away almost half their farm, but that was appealed by Harmony. Before that appeal, Harmony Energy made an offer of compensation that was above the statutory minimum but, as far as Rob and Emma were concerned, below what would have been their actual commercial loss.

On appeal, the refusal of the solar farm by the local planning authority was overturned, but the inspector failed to make it a condition of that consent that the compensation offered by Harmony, and alluded to throughout the entire appeal, should be paid to Rob and Emma. Unfortunately, Harmony Energy has now taken that compensation offer away and reverted to offering only the statutory minimum compensation of six times rent for half the Sturdys’ farm. That is wholly unacceptable.

The case is made doubly worse by the fact that it was called in by the Government and the decision of the inspector was fully supported by the Planning Minister, despite the promise made to tenant farmers by the Prime Minister when, as Leader of the Opposition, he said that solar energy schemes must not be taken forward at the expense of tenant farmers and that tenant farmers needed to know that the soil beneath their feet was secure. Unfortunately, Rob and Emma are now feeling the emptiness of those words. That is why this provision is so ripe for change. Furthermore, in the solar road map that the Government published in June, they said that statutory compensation for tenant farmers must be addressed, so there is no reason why it cannot be addressed for all development that causes dislocation to tenant farmers.

The situation for tenants under farm business tenancies, regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, is arguably worse. There is no statutory fallback position as to compensation when a tenant loses land following a planning application obtained by the landlord for change of use which allows the landlord to use a contractual clause to remove land. Amendment 253 merely seeks to add a legislative fallback position. Again, this will operate to provide tenants with a level of compensation equivalent to their real loss in losing land to a change of use following the granting of planning permission.

Amendment 253B seeks for the compulsory purchase regime to fully recognise the way in which tenant farmers are impacted. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, have spoken expertly on the need for wider reform of the way in which compulsory purchase operates, but this amendment focuses its attention on tenant farmers, who are often left out of discussions and end up with little or indeed no compensation when they see their businesses, homes and livelihoods devastated by a compulsory purchase acquisition.

While the landlord might receive a level of compensation which may or may not be reasonable in the circumstances, we must ensure that tenant farmers are also in receipt of a level of compensation which adequately covers their losses. In the same way that tenant farmers facing loss of land due to change of use being taken forward by their landlords need adequate compensation, the same must be true when the land is removed through compulsory purchase.

I confess I was increasingly dismayed this evening to note that the Minister in early responses on CPOs constantly referred to landowners. Some 64% of England’s land is wholly or partly tenanted, and yet the Minister fails to address the issue of tenant farmers who do not own land but will still be affected by CPOs. I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment to level the playing field for tenant farmers.

The Government should, and I believe should with ease, support these amendments, as they sit firmly within their own policy that the compensation payable to a farm tenant should be “adequate and fair” following a change of use to give way to a solar energy scheme as set out in the Government’s own recent solar road map. In already accepting that compensation provisions are not fit for purpose for solar energy schemes, the Government surely must also recognise that they are not acceptable for other types of development where the tenant farmer, through no fault and no decision of their own, loses occupation of land where they pay rent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Grender has cosigned the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Unfortunately, she is not well and so is not here tonight. She has asked me to make it clear that she fully supports the amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock, supported by my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

These are very important amendments, not just because the contents are wise and right, but also because of the detailed knowledge my noble friend has of tenant farming—better than anyone else in this House. My noble friend is a non-executive director of Imagination Technologies and First News UK. She is the senior independent director of the Keller Group, a company of 10,000 employees with a revenue of £3 billion. She is also the chair of Costain, another company with revenue of almost £1.5 billion. My noble friend is a top-notch executive with experience of analysing problems and delivering solutions, and has been headhunted by some of the most important companies in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is no surprise that in 2022, the Defra Secretary of State asked her to chair the Tenancy Working Group, which had two clear objectives.

The first was to look at how the new government financial schemes will be accessible, open and flexible to tenant farmers. The second was to look at longer-term changes that would ensure a robust, vibrant and thriving agricultural tenanted sector for the future. With roughly a third of farmland in England being tenanted, tenant farmers are absolutely vital to the nation’s food production, alongside the delivery of environmental outcomes.

Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

That this House regrets that under the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 (SI 2025/409), the new routes for applications for planning permission for Crown developments of national importance will disregard accepted democratic processes and will be determined by the Planning Inspectorate and not local planning authorities.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled a regret Motion on this statutory instrument well before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now making its way through your Lordships’ House, had even had its Second Reading. Many of the issues I am still concerned with in this order have been debated during the progress of the Bill.

However, I make no apology for once again making the case for community involvement in developments that affect their locality. The Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 fundamentally alters the planning landscape in England. While this instrument appears to be merely procedural, it is in fact a key mechanism for cementing a significant power grab that threatens local accountability and transparency.

The SI we are debating is one of three other statutory instruments that implement the new routes for Crown development, which, to be fair to the Government, were introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. During the debate on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, I argued that there had to be community involvement in planning applications, in particular those on behalf of the Crown. Unfortunately, what this statutory instrument does is put central expediency over local democracy and due process in regard to Crown planning applications.

To give a bit of an example, the central purpose of this route for Crown development is to allow government departments—the “appropriate authority”—to apply directly to the Secretary of State for planning permission, bypassing the local planning authority entirely. The rationale provided by the department is that

“Government departments have faced challenges securing planning permission”

through the local planning authority route. This has resulted in delayed decisions for

“nationally important planned projects such as prisons or defence facilities”.

My argument is simple: challenges are the bedrock of a vibrant democracy and, in particular for planning, a vibrant local democracy. When a local planning authority scrutinises a development, it is ensuring that the project is in line with community needs and environmental standards, as well as the national need. By shifting the power of determination from local authority to the Planning Inspectorate, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, the local checks and balances are being sacrificed for the sake of speed of decision.

One of the most startling issues I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI is that there has been no public consultation on the instrument. The department claims this is due to the “technical nature” of the SI. Yet this technical instrument results in a major policy shift, affecting potentially every community in England.

While the statutory instrument sets out procedures for standard Crown development, the legislative package also covers urgent Crown development. For this, the department has indicated that the need for community engagement will be assessed on a case by case basis, meaning that the Secretary of State appears to have it almost entirely in their discretion whether local engagement is needed at all. If they have this discretion, obviously it puts in peril the public’s right to engage with nationally important projects that could drastically alter their neighbourhood.

The entire system hinges on the concept of a development being defined as “of national importance”. The statutory instrument uses the words “Crown development”. So can the Minister provide an explanation of what is defined as Crown development? Is it any development, whatever size is applied for, that takes place on Crown land?

Article 5 of the instrument allows for the Secretary of State to direct that information related to an application can also be defined as “sensitive information”. If the Secretary of State deems that information relates to national security or security measures and its public disclosure would be contrary to the national interest, the provisions requiring public disclosure will not apply. I can accept that sometimes this is the case. However, in the modern world, nothing is secret and nothing stays away from the public gaze. While sensitive projects may require limited disclosure, this provision actually provides a broad mechanism for withholding crucial information from the public under the umbrella of national interest.

The Government propose that this package of reforms will bring benefits to the public sector, enabling faster planning decisions and potential cost savings to capital programmes—but at what cost? This statutory instrument and the supporting ones undermine the very principles of local planning. They centralise power, sidestep public consultation, rely on vague criteria and restrict transparency. We are being asked to accept an instrument that accelerates government projects by silencing local voices.

I urge the Minister to consider the long-term impact on local governance and planning democracy, as I have done throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to consider enabling communities to have their voice heard before the process is concluded. You can guarantee that local voices will be raised at some point. How much better that those voices are heard during deliberations on a planning application on Crown land, and not after the deal is done? I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. We on this side of the House believe in local democracy. It is why I proposed an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure local democracy where there are valid planning grounds, and why I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on ensuring affirmative procedures for delegated planning powers was passed.

However, there is a need for balance. Today, we are seeing a government programme for the early release of prisoners. While this is, in large part, due to a failure to manage the prison population and deport foreign-born criminals, the lack of prison capacity is a factor. Importantly, the lack of prison space hampers prison rehabilitation—a matter that I know the Prisons Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is much vexed about. As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist raised last night, the huge impact that the delays to and additional costs of the UK nuclear programme is having on the cost of energy is a major issue for struggling families and industry. It is therefore right to have a balanced approach.

Section 109 of the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act added two new sections to the Town and Country Planning Act, creating new routes for Crown development. These provisions allow for an appropriate authority to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permissions, rather than the local planning authority. The intention behind this change was clear: to prevent delay or obstruction to vital national development, such as prisons.

As I have said, we are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but these powers are proportionate and balanced. It is our understanding that the Town and Country Planning (Crown Development Applications) (Procedure and Written Representations) Order 2025 concerns development applications on Crown land that are deemed to be of national importance. The instrument sets out the procedure for such Crown development applications, including applications for planning permissions and approval for reserved matters. Crown development refers to applications made by the Crown bodies for development of national importance.

As so often in matters like these, the key issue is balance between local voice and national need, and between the principle of localism and the imperative to deliver key national infrastructure efficiently. We stand by the intentions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which expands local voices in the round, taking them seriously by strengthening the role of local plans, creating new opportunities for communities to shape development in their areas and ensuring that decision-making is rooted closer to the people it affects. The Act sought to make planning more transparent, more accountable and more responsive to local priorities. It was never about sidelining local democracy but about creating a system capable of delivering both local consent and national progress.

The provisions on Crown development sit within that broader context. They are not a retreat from localism but a recognition that, on occasion, public interest requires a more streamlined route for developments of genuine national importance. As ever, the challenge is to strike the right balance, to protect local accountability while ensuring that the machinery of state can deliver where delay would carry a wider national cost. That principle underpins this instrument and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act itself. It is right that we reaffirm it today.

--- Later in debate ---

These regulations are important to ensure a more timely and proportionate process for dealing with planning applications of national importance for Crown development in England. The Government are taking steps to ensure that these routes are used appropriately and that there is full scrutiny of the use of the powers. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to explain the basis of Crown development.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for her full and detailed response to my concerns. Unfortunately, the fundamentals remain. The Minister is quite right to say that the local planning authority will be involved in all the notifications and that voices and comments and so on can be heard, but in the end, the decision is taken over there and not where it should be, in the locality. That has always been my concern, as the Minister will know.

The balance has tipped too far in favour of government planning applications on Crown land, rather than trying to speed up processes which still engage local people fully. Having said that—–

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has spent many hours in this Chamber debating what we are doing elsewhere in the planning system to speed up decision-making. While I understand her great championing of community engagement in planning, we are trying to get the balance right here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I accept that wholly. The Minister has always responded positively to the queries I have raised; it is just that we disagree on the balance.

I shall continue challenging because I think that is always needed. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

87FD: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning permission: Responsible Actors Scheme members(1) No member of the Responsible Actors Scheme may be granted planning permission or carry out major development of land in England through any agent or contractor or any other person acting for or on their behalf until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that—(a) all buildings developed by Responsible Actors Scheme members with relevant defects are remediated at no cost to leaseholders or commonhold unit owners, and(b) where a relevant defect arises from a failure to comply with building regulations or relevant approved documents in force at the time of the construction of a building by a Responsible Actors Scheme member, that defect must be corrected by remediating the building to current building regulations.(2) In this section—“building” means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings;“major development” has the meaning given by article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595);“member of the Responsible Actors Scheme” means a member of the Scheme established under The Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023 (S.I. 2023/753);“relevant defect” has the same means as in section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause prevents members of the Responsible Actors Scheme (the UK’s large developers) from applying for or undertaking major development until the Secretary of State has revised the Scheme to ensure that all unsafe blocks of flats are remediated.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of tabling this amendment is twofold. First, it is to shine a beacon of light on a building scandal that has recently fallen out of the national spotlight. Secondly, it is to urge the Government to use this Bill to exert further pressure on those who caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where, I remind the House, 72 people lost their lives.

This amendment is not about pointing the finger of blame at this or past Governments. It is about seeking to put more pressure on those who created the conditions in which people died and which many leaseholders now have to endure, consequent on building safety failure.

What are the facts? The MHCLG estimates—I note that there is no current definitive figure—that between 5,900 and 9,000 buildings over 11 metres have unsafe cladding. This means that over a quarter of a million individual flats and perhaps nearly half a million people are affected, and that is just for those blocks over 11 metres, which are the subject of the Building Safety Act.

According to government figures for August this year, 1,927 blocks have had their remediation completed and a further 750 have started, but that leaves many thousands of leaseholders in limbo. I accept that the Government have attempted to improve this position with the remediation acceleration plan, alongside a promise for a remediation Bill. Can the Minister tell the House when that Bill is likely to be introduced?

The action plan commits to completing all remediation of blocks over 11 metres by 2029. That is a full 12 years after the Grenfell Tower fire. Meanwhile, leaseholders are paying the price for a situation that in no part is of their making. They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever-rising service charges, and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell. For some, this has had very tragic consequences. The mother of one of those who ended their life as a direct result of this enormously stressful situation is sitting in the Gallery today and listening to this debate.

This Bill is an opportunity further to address the building safety scandal by putting more pressure on those who created these dangerous living conditions. Amendment 87FD in my name and co-signed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to require that construction companies that have signed up to the responsible actors scheme agree to the full remediation of all buildings—that includes those under 11 metres—before they are able to proceed with further major developments. This must be achieved at no cost to leaseholders. For those living in blocks of under 11 metres, currently the costs fall on them, despite their not having created the building scandal in any way. The major housebuilders are well able to afford to pay for the crisis they created, with annual operating profits being in the high hundreds of millions of pounds.

The noble Lord Young of Cookham wished to speak in support of this amendment, but, unfortunately, he is currently speaking in Grand Committee. He has asked me to say that he is in complete support of the amendment and will vote in the Lobby in support of it if a vote is called. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied that more can be extracted from those who created the crisis that is putting lives at risk, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have added my name. We have both spent many years trying to persuade the Government that a clearer and more comprehensive solution is needed to protect everyone affected by the building safety crisis. Noble Lords will know of my professional insights into this matter as a chartered surveyor and of my previous attempts to get fair treatment for innocent homeowners. .

I continue to receive mail from home owners, small investors, property managers and conveyancers who are utterly dismayed at the complexity, uncertainty and capricious nature of the funding under government schemes, which involve matters of building height, cladding combustibility and unseen and previously unknowable compartmentation issues, with funding applying differentially to various classes of ownership or being dependent on the freeholder’s assets, plus identification of the person responsible and whether that person has effective agency in relation to remediation. In addition, there are two parallel standards of remediation at work.

Some noble Lords will recall that during the deliberations on the Building Safety Bill, I convened a briefing for Peers. We were addressed by the late Amanda Walker, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was, I think, making reference. She told us how her life and world had been turned upside down. Her experience fits entirely with what others have told me of a living hell of unsellable property, unaffordable interim safety costs, insurance hikes and unknowable liabilities going forward—in short, what they thought was a safe and secure home being turned into a financial prison—and of the stress, ruined lives and total inequality of the exclusions from protection.

I joined Amanda’s mother and brother earlier today in a meeting with Minister Samantha Dixon. She gave the impression of listening very carefully to what we said. Mrs Walker’s recent email, which I paraphrase, says this: “My precious daughter was a very ardent campaigner on behalf of thousands of leaseholders who suffered because of loopholes in the Building Safety Act. This amendment”—she is referring to the amendment before us now—“will not help her but may help many others. The anxiety levels in so many people were painful to watch, and in my view ruined many lives”.

As the Minister knows, around 1.7 million leaseholders do not have full or even, in some cases, partial protection from the costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Those living in buildings below 11 metres have no protection at all, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Enfranchised leaseholders and those owning more than three properties are liable for any non-cladding remediation costs. Other leaseholders may have to contribute up to £15,000 to cover non-cladding costs—depending on the wealth of their freeholder, if you please. All these people are completely innocent of the causes that led to defects in their building, not just cladding but basic disregard of the building regulations in force at the time of construction.

The assumption is that lower rise buildings are safe because it is easier to mitigate risks, to escape from them and for fire and rescue services to attend to emergencies, but we do not actually know that they are safe. The proportionate standard under PAS 9980, which is the remediation standard frequently used, admits that spread of fire may be more rapid given the greater prevalence of combustible materials in the construction, and the capacity of many construction products to generate impenetrable choking smoke when burning, impeding escape. And who pays for any mitigation? Ultimately, it is the leaseholders.

According to the National Fire Chiefs Council, the current Building Safety Act’s three-tier approach—fully protected, partial or capped protection, and totally unprotected— is delaying remediation and leaving leaseholders in limbo. That funding is fragmented, and occupiers are left in unsafe buildings or are among the growing number, currently totalling more than 14,000, of those mandatorily evacuated, sometimes having to leave very modern buildings. The National Audit Office has found that the PAS 9980 risk-based approach to remediation is a cause of delays as different stakeholders argue over what constitutes “proportionate” remediation and “tolerable” risk, both of which terms appear in that document. Some 52 flat developers have signed up to the responsible actors scheme. Their remediation responsibility is to this proportionate standard only—never mind failure to build to the relevant building standards applicable at the time of construction.

Markets need transparency, and the Government need to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance over past 30 years. It has long been an offence not to comply with building regulations. Market sentiment depends on clarity, but beyond the scope of the Government’s remediation portfolio, it is unclear what the reality actually is. So long as this doubt sloshes around the market, the insurance and lending sectors and, indeed, purchaser keenness, will remain febrile. All these may predispose a wider malaise the longer this persists, particularly in the lending markets, where the impact of new solvency regulations means that such uncertainties will have to be factored into securitisation risks, loan book management and consumer costs.

For evidence of the effects today, I point to flagging new flat construction, rising costs, schemes being mothballed and softening sales markets. Wagging fingers at insurers will not get rid of risk awareness and sentiment. Once you understand that something is a risk, it is there for ever. While I understand why the Government might not want to garner a lot of non-compliance data, if, despite consumers’ and the markets’ need to know, they choose not to do so, what I set out is the inevitable outcome, with implications for urban redevelopment and densification, homebuilding targets and, ultimately, stable communities.

This amendment would sweep up all building types, all tenures, and both cladding and non-cladding defects. It would tighten standards and encompass product manufacturers. Any planning delays under the amendment would be no more than the minimum necessary to process regulations immediately on Royal Assent, and I believe very few projects would be held up in practice. If the Government agree the principle that innocent people should not foot the bill for bad building practices or even for preserving the Government’s own policy objectives, they need at least to indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that they propose to take this forward with serious intent. This amendment would give the Secretary of State the tools to do this and to end the two-tier remediation standard, the basic inequity and uncertainty of the current protections, and the market disruption that has accompanied them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these important issues with their Amendment 87FD on the remediation of buildings by developers and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their tireless support for residents since the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I understand that the amendment is intended to protect residents and leaseholders. Unfortunately, its effect would be to slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding.

I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there has been no relaxing of the Government’s determination to deal with the significant remediation actions outstanding from Grenfell. I spoke to my honourable friend Minister Dixon just last week. She has now picked up the urgent action needed to accelerate remediation. She has already visited the Grenfell site, and I am pleased to hear that she has met Mrs Walker and other members of the Grenfell community. I know she takes her responsibility extremely seriously and she will continue the work of Minister Norris in dealing with this as quickly as possible. There will be a further opportunity in the very near future for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.

Amendment 87FD is intended to prevent members of the responsible actors scheme receiving new planning permissions or building new housing developments until the Government make fundamental changes to the scheme to require developers to remediate additional types of defect and apply a different approach to the remediation of external walls. In practice, this would mean that over 40 of the largest housebuilders in England would have to stop building new homes until the Government made changes to an essential remediation scheme that we assess would delay and undermine progress.

This landmark Bill is intended to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve the ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament. It is simply not compatible with the aims of the Bill to include a measure which would stop the largest housebuilders in this country building new homes. It would lead to major market uncertainty and disruption. Nor would the proposed changes to the responsible actors scheme serve the interests of residents and leaseholders, as they would delay remediation of their buildings for years.

Over 50 major developers have signed developer remediation contracts with the Government and committed to fix life-critical fire safety defects in over 2,370 buildings, at a cost of approximately £4.7 billion. This is supported by the statutory responsible actors scheme, which enables the Secretary of State to impose severe commercial consequences on any eligible developer who fails to follow through on their remediation obligations. Since signing the contracts, developers have assessed over 90% of relevant buildings and have started or completed works on 44% of buildings known to require works. This amendment would require fundamental changes in the responsible actors scheme by requiring developers to identify a different set of defects and require remediation to a different standard. Attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government. The result would be disastrous for residents and leaseholders, leading to long delays, operational and legal confusion, and uncertainty. Essential works to protect people could be set back by years.

The current approach to remediation under the developer remediation contract is proportionate and appropriate and uses PAS 9980, the same standard for external wall remediation as the Government’s wider remediation programme. The PAS 9980 standard is used for external wall system remediation because we are focused on mitigating risks to life safety, taking an evidence-based and proportionate approach. External wall remediation is assessed based on a fire risk appraisal of external walls which suggests remedial work or mitigation to improve a building’s risk rating through a holistic and fact-based assessment of its construction. Removal of combustible materials is often recommended but is not always necessary, including when other mitigating measures are taken. This proportionate approach to cladding remediation aims to manage fire risks and make sure that residents are safe, while preventing the kind of unnecessary works that can also be incredibly disruptive for residents.

To pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about insurance, we are clear that more needs to be done to protect leaseholders from very high insurance premiums. The fire safety reinsurance facility led by the Association of British Insurers and reinsurance broker McGill and Partners launched in April 2024. The facility aims to increase capacity in the market and may reduce high premiums for some of the most affected multi-occupancy buildings with fire safety issues. The facility has been renewed for a second year and is a viable option for building owners trying to find the best deal for their residents. In the first 12 months, over 760 buildings have been supported by the facility and now more buildings may benefit from the cover available, as the claims limit has increased to £75 million. In the remediation acceleration plan announced, we would work with the insurance industry to consider options for possible government support. We are currently engaging with industry and will provide an update on all this in due course.

This amendment has raised important technical issues about the remediation process. We cannot do full justice to them tonight, but there will be further opportunities for this House to debate the remediation of buildings at much greater length during the passage of the upcoming remediation Bill. I look forward to that opportunity. What is already clear, however, is that the amendment we are looking at tonight would undermine the core purpose of the Bill by greatly delaying work to remediate buildings, as well as putting at serious risk critical work to build new homes. Given these very serious concerns, I urge noble Lords to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the Conservative Front Bench for taking part in this debate, but I am thoroughly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It is not an either/or. How can it be an either/or? According to the Minister’s response, either we enable housebuilders to build more homes or we accelerate even further the remediation of flats that are in a dangerous condition. It should not be either/or; it should be both/and. There is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I made it clear that the danger in the amendment is in doing just what the noble Baroness has spoken against. We want to move the remediation acceleration forward as quickly as possible, at the same time as building new homes. The danger with this amendment is that it slows the whole thing down and means that neither the remediation nor the building of new homes gets done quickly.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Unfortunately, I do not accept the Minister’s argument because, under the Government’s own remediation acceleration scheme, it will take another six or seven years for people to have their homes made safe. How is that right? We heard the compelling arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the 1.7 million leaseholders who will be required to pay many thousands of pounds to make their own homes safe when it is not their fault. It is not acceptable that we are still here, all these years after that awful fire at Grenfell Tower, trying to debate yet again what is going on.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I am hugely in sympathy with the noble Baroness in her aim but, as the author when I was in ministerial office of the responsible actors scheme, which was stoutly resisted by housing developers, I had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them—by making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, they would receive no planning permission whatever—and making sure that they could continue to build the houses we need. Have the noble Baroness and the supporters of this amendment looked at what the impact on the balance sheets of individual housebuilders might be, and what impact that would have on our current rate of buildout? Also, is it not the case that many of those who do not qualify at the moment for support for remediation—the so-called non-qualifying leaseholders—are people with extensive property portfolios? A line has to be drawn somewhere to ensure that those with significant wealth do not benefit, while those who do need support receive it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gove, for his intervention. He is right that when the scheme was established, it was on the basis of squeezing the housebuilders as far as they could go. However, if I remember the figure correctly, one of the major housebuilders has made an operating profit in the last year of £870 million. Call me a curmudgeon if you like, but if some of that could be used to fund making the dangerous flats they built safe for people to live in, I think that is not a bad call.

We have had the argument but I am not content with the answers I have got, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. I hope that those on the Conservative Benches will support those who have spoken strong and hard in favour of remediation schemes, and in favour of leaseholders, through the Lobby.