Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Lansley

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.

Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.

As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.

Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 171A to Clause 69 seeks to create an additional methodology open to Natural England when deciding how best to determine charging schedules for contributions to the nature restoration fund—the NRF. Clause 69(5) sets out the methodologies that Natural England can use to determine what a developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the nature restoration fund. It has clearly been written by a planner, not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed or the floor-space of the development, with reference to the expected values of the development, the planned uses of the building and even the rate of inflation, yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species covered by the EDP to which the charging schedule should actually relate. This makes no sense.

The purpose of Part 3 is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a protected feature or species, yet those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due. A charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule. My amendment creates the option—and it is no more than that; it adds to the numerous options already available—for the Government to address this weakness and align the payments due under a charging schedule with the protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the Government’s response.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Lansley

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. At the beginning of last year, in Committee in the Commons on the earlier incarnation of the Bill, the Minister—who is now Secretary of State—George Eustice MP, said:

“I do not believe we need a statement that fisheries resources are a national asset or public property, because that is self-evidently the case and our common law has always held as much.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 13/12/18; col. 285.]


At the time I took that as gospel. I admire his legal confidence—I say that in a “Yes Minister” context—because I am not certain that the legal confidence is supported by all involved in the industry. There is a famous case where Justice Cranston suggested that there was a type of property right attributed to a fixed quota allocation and that owners would probably need to be given in the region of seven years’ notice of the intention to move away from those FQA units as a type of property right. Such a legal hitch—this is important—might hamper the Government’s intention to move away from relative stability to zonal allocation.

The point I am making is that if the Government believe that quota and marine stocks belong to the nation as a whole, it cannot possibly do any harm to make that clear in the Bill right at the start, so there is absolutely no doubt throughout the industry; and, more importantly, that in any future court case, trying to prove the opposite will founder on the rock of this legislation, set out in 2020, at the start of a new fishing era by the express will of Parliament.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest at this stage as a director of a company that is in a partnership with another agency among whose clients is UK Fisheries. I put that on record. I will not repeat it every time I intervene in Committee, but I hope noble Lords will be aware of that interest.

This amendment is not grouped with anything else, because if we were to include it in the Bill it would not change any other part of it; it would simply be a statement at the outset. As the noble Lord suggested, it is a statement of the obvious and of fact. In my view it is not the purpose of legislation to state pre-existing facts. It is not necessary in legislation always to state the obvious for the facts to be true. Were this amendment to be included in the Bill, people would say that it had to be included in the Bill, otherwise it would not be true. I am trying to work out in what sense it could not be true that would give rise to it being included in the Bill, which would then give a court a reason to try to interpret it.

I then got into trouble because I am looking at it saying, “the nation”. If the amendment were to be included in the Bill in the form in which it exists, it would drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. The Bill very carefully establishes the rights of, for example, the Scottish Fisheries Administration to determine the allocation of quota in relation to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about moving away from relative stability. Indeed, we could, if we wished to, under this legislation change the fixed quota allocations, although it is not the Government’s present intention to do so, as I understand it. To that extent, it is evident that the Government could change the allocation of and access to fish stocks. They can do so because they effectively own the fish stocks. The Bill has, as we will discover, a sophisticated mechanism for planning how this will be done, how it will be consulted on and how it will be managed between the devolved Administrations. This amendment, in my view, would frustrate all of that at the outset, and for that reason I do not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I have just one thing to say about this group. Amendment 6 addresses an issue we discussed at Second Reading: managing so many objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew the attention of the House, forcefully and compellingly, to the way in which the sustainability objective in the Bill, as drafted, includes socioeconomic objectives. They ought to be identified and listed separately. To that extent, I support Amendment 6. Noble Lords will be aware that it includes the sentence:

“The sustainability objective shall be the prime objective”.


Not everybody is in favour of that, but I think we need to say it. My noble friend Lord Randall was talking about Amendment 7, but the same thought applies here. He is quite right that if we do not sustain our fish stocks all the other objectives will be vitiated. It has to be clear that there is a first objective, even though it would be beyond this Committee to list, sequence or rank the others. However, the joint fisheries statement will probably have to do something of that kind, at least, to show how they are being interpreted and balanced. I do not envy it that difficult task. The Committee should look carefully at Amendment 6 and see whether it is possible to incorporate its principles into the Bill before it leaves this place.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 2 and would have done so to Amendment 6, had I been allowed, but there were too many subscribers. I support Amendment 2 because, as many noble Lords know, the existence of intergenerational poverty and deprivation in rural areas has long been of concern to me. While the numerous villages and market towns throughout rural England all have their problems in this respect, there is no doubt that coastal communities suffer more than most. The main reason for this is that an ordinary market town can survive, and sometimes thrive, on services maintained by its surrounding farmers, businesses and maybe even wealthy retirees. However, a coastal community, by its very geography—I realise that I am straying into the realms of the bleeding obvious here—only ever has 50% of the catchment of an inland market town. Coastal communities therefore struggle. The sea provides very little except fish and tourism, with, perhaps in the future, some form of energy added to that mix. It is therefore important that a firm part of our fisheries objectives should include the socioeconomic objective.

I totally agree with Amendment 6 that the sustainability objective should always be the prime one. I support that, maybe even to exclusion of Amendment 2, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we need these coastal communities, and their harvest, to survive in the long term. In the past, I always said that one of the problems with the common fisheries policy is that the children and grandchildren of today’s fishing communities never get a vote. We now have the chance. When we repatriate our fisheries policy, we must always think of the socioeconomic prosperity of these grandchildren.

I also support Amendment 27, which puts the monitoring of the sustainability objectives firmly in the hands of the OEP in future. That makes very good sense.

Returning to Amendment 2, a key part of the socioeconomic objective should include recreational sea angling. There is not much about recreational angling in the Bill, which is fine because there is not much to say. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has tabled an amendment on this point; I came across that quite late in the day. The socioeconomic benefit of recreational angling to coastal communities is huge. Even in 2012, the latest year for which I could get hold of statistics, the sea angler spend was £2.1 billion locally, supporting more than 20,000 local jobs. They say that a fish caught with rod and line is worth at least six times more than one caught in a net. Recreational fishermen use local boats and local crews, and they use local pubs, hotels, shops, garages, car hire et cetera. All of this is vital to the socioeconomic objectives in this amendment and needs nurturing.