Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment 214. My noble friend nearly said that we are no more than three meals away from societal breakdown, but we are—and, in the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one requirement. Land is the principal resource that provides bread, beer, biscuits, as well as broccoli, and they are not making land anymore.

I am concerned, because the land use framework that has been proposed by the Government contemplates that fully 9% of our farmland will be used for non-growing purposes. Your Lordships will have heard me say before, in respect of solar panels particularly, that it is beyond careless to allow the best land to be consumed for non-farmland purposes before the worst land is exhausted. Last year, the national wheat yield was down 20% on account of wet weather. This year, there is an impairment in many areas on account of the dry weather. The weather changes, but we cannot be careless about our food supply.

The better news is that we have recently heard encouraging noises from former Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been. It is noteworthy that, while we no longer have a Minister for Agriculture, we have a Minister for Food Security, and I think we should all welcome that, provided that the title of food security flows through into recognising the importance to national security, ensuring that the greatest proportion of the food in this country can meet our needs.

I had a commercial meeting this morning with one of the UK’s largest participants in the agricultural supply chain in this country. Its agricultural director gave me what I felt was a stunning statistic, and I will relay it to noble Lords. He said that, over the last 30 years, the amount of arable farmland in this country has diminished by 30%. I questioned him: “You mean 1% per year, each year, for the last 30 years?”, and he said, “Yes, we used to count on a 15 million tonne a year wheat harvest, now we’re lucky to get 12”. These are big reductions with large consequences, so I enthusiastically endorse Amendment 214. If we are going to have a Minister for Food Security, doing this arithmetic is going to be an essential part of her task—how else can she benchmark her success? I think the amendment is fully in tune with the direction this Government are going in.

Had it been my amendment, I would have probably asked for the data to be embellished by an assessment of the underlying agricultural land quality—the ALC, or agricultural land classification—so that we could work out not just the number of hectares that are lost but how they apportioned between the best and most versatile land versus the lower ranks. I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider enhancing the amendment with agricultural land classification, if he sustains it on Report. Otherwise, I give it my full support in Committee.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I very much want to support this amendment, because it is asking for information, and one of the problems we have in this country is that when we do not like the answers, we do not ask the question. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue here.

I am rather in favour of properly placed solar farms, but I use the wording “properly placed”. I also think that, in many ways, at least you can get rid of them. The problem with building houses is that you cannot, and I am very concerned about the way in which we constantly use greenfield sites instead of insisting on the development of already used land. I have to say that this Government have really not faced up to the reality, which is that the housebuilding industry does not like anything but a greenfield site and will take those long before it will try to develop inside our already used towns and the like.

This is not only bad for food security but bad for the environment, because it means that people, instead of living relatively hugger-mugger, able to live and move within the same area, have in fact to use transport to get anywhere. In Suffolk, where I come from, I see this all the time: more and more people are commuting from villages which have never had the jobs, and will not have the jobs, to towns increasingly far away. So, the issue of housebuilding is crucial, and we have not thought it through. Merely saying “1.5 million new homes over five years” does not actually face the real issue.

I declare an interest as a small organic farmer. I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to face food security. I am not sure that I myself would have chosen Angela Eagle for that job. The fact of the matter is that it is a very important job, but it is not one that is being faced up to. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I was interviewed by Peter Jay, the cleverest man in Europe, and he said to me, “I don’t know why we have a Minister of Agriculture, because we can always buy food elsewhere in the world”. That is the ignorant position, which I am afraid has been carried on either publicly or privately, and not only by this Government, but I fear by previous Governments too.

It is a serious matter that no member of this Cabinet has real agricultural connections of any kind. No member represents a fully agricultural seat, although I am pleased to see that the new Secretary of State for Defra—who is an extremely intelligent and useful addition to the Cabinet—has the most agricultural seat of any Cabinet Minister: Wycombe. Anyone who knows where Wycombe is knows that the agricultural bit is ancillary rather than central.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report

“detailing the total area … of any land that has been taken out of food production as a result of the provisions of this Act”,

as well as an assessment of any increase in risk to the water and food security of the UK.

As noble Lords know, the measures in this Bill provide changes to the existing planning process to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery. In other words, they are levers within an existing planning system. It is therefore impossible to measure whether any land use change from development is as a result of specific measures in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government already publish regular reports on land use change and food security. These include: statistics on land use change from agricultural land to residential use every three years; a report by Natural England on agricultural land take to development over the period 2013 to 2022, following previous reviews undertaken by Defra; annual analysis on agricultural land use change through the annual June survey of agriculture and horticulture; statutory annual analysis of agricultural statistics through Agriculture in the United Kingdom; and statutory analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK at least every three years. The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK.

To address the concern driving this amendment, I reassure noble Lords once again that the Government are clear that food security is national security. We absolutely understand that point, made powerfully by noble Lords during this debate. In July, Defra published the good food cycle as part of the UK food strategy. It outlined the development of work on sustainable, resilient domestic production of food. There are planning policy measures in place to ensure that non-agricultural land is encouraged over agricultural land.

As I have mentioned a couple of times already today, the National Planning Policy Framework also safeguards the best and most versatile land, which is land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

Furthermore, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government consulted on land use in England from January to April this year. The responses are informing the preparation of the land use framework, which will be published later this year. It will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land.

The Government do not believe that new water resources infrastructure, such as new strategic reservoirs or local catchment solutions, will threaten food security. Of course, a successful agricultural sector depends on access to secure water supplies, and the National Farmers’ Union and farmers are working with the Environment Agency and water companies to help us develop water resources.

The Government also do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mount solar PV panels covered only around 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. The Solar Roadmap also sets out how much land we estimate could be taken up by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in the most ambitious—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The Minister has said “the Government do not believe” three times now. Would it not be a good idea to check whether or not their belief was true? She also said something really frightening. She said, “Because this Act is in addition to other things, it is impossible to see what its effect would be”. What kind of legislation can it be to put before the House when the Government cannot tell what its effect is, nor are prepared to measure what its effect is when it takes place? I find this very difficult to understand.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I set out for the noble Lord all the measurements already taken, in respect of the take of agricultural land. That is an important part of the system. As regards solar generation, the Solar Roadmap sets out how much land we estimate could be taken by solar farms as part of our clean power 2030 commitment. Even in ambitious scenarios, we expect only up to 0.4% of total UK land to be occupied. Solar farms can operate alongside farming activities but, to answer noble Lords’ points about the provision of solar on non-domestic buildings, we will be setting that out shortly, as we have done already for domestic buildings. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for supporting this amendment. It is something of the usual crew, and “Green Member gets up to support climate and biodiversity action” is, I know, not terribly original, but I just want to make a couple of specific points. One is that there was a climate reporting duty on local authorities until 2010, brought in by a previous Labour Government. This amendment is seeking to reinstate something that Labour Governments brought in.

Repeated calls have come from the Climate Change Committee, businesses and the independent net zero review for a statutory local duty on climate, which is what this amendment aims to introduce. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred memorably to the “NERC Act”, a phrase I had not heard before; I think I will call it the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, because it is perhaps a bit clearer. It links with the Environment Act 2021, and research on the implementation of it is clear—it exists but it is all terribly obscure, and people are not catching up with it. This amendment introduces something very clear and simple.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, this is a debate that we keep having, so let us bring in a climate duty. Your Lordships’ House has had some real success over the years in having impact on Bills. I can go back to the pensions dashboards Bill, which will predate quite a number of people sitting in this Chamber. It was the first Committee stage I ever worked on, and we were trying to get climate measurements into the pensions dashboard. We really need to get to the point where your Lordships’ House does not have to keep doing this Bill after Bill. I know the noble Lord is concerned about the rate of progress, but if the Government put this in at the start, we would save a lot of time in your Lordships’ House.

I want to make one other crucial point. Local authorities have clear statutory duties, including a growth duty under the Deregulation Act 2015. There is a real imbalance between the fact that they have this growth duty but not a duty to look after the environment, climate and nature. Whatever I may think about growth, if you do not have a healthy environment, if communities are being battered by heatwaves, floods and droughts and you are not doing the climate mitigation you need to do, then you are not going to get the growth. These two things have to fit together.

We are all well aware that different parties with different views are coming into local authorities now, but this is a communal responsibility. Loss of biodiversity does not stop at county or district boundaries; climate change does not stop there either. All local authorities must have the duty, so that everyone is looked after. We cannot allow some people a free ride.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, this is a crucial amendment, not least for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put forward. We are going to go on about this until we have an overall demand that this is how we think about matters. We have to recognise that unless we make all our decisions in the context of recovering our biodiversity and protecting our nation and the world against climate change, we are going to make a mess of the decisions we make. That is absolutely central.

I know the Government will be inclined to say it is already there—it is in the guidance, and it is all very proper—but I am afraid that there are many in local authorities who do not see this as the priority it ought to be. I really must ask the Minister to think seriously about the fact that every local authority at least must know that it has to think about things through this lens, because it is the most important lens for all of us.

I live in, and used to represent, a very agricultural constituency, and anyone who has seen the effect of the drought on all our farms at the moment will realise just how desperate the effect of climate change is, particularly for farmers who, only 18 months ago, could not get their crops out because of the water and could not plant because it was still too wet to do so.

People do not understand the impact of climate change today—it is amazing. I am upset and concerned that the good common view of all major political parties is beginning to be eroded. Only by working together are we going to solve these problems. It is no good just saying, “Oh well, we can put it off. We can’t do it by this or that time”. I congratulate the Government on sticking to the fact that we have to do this very quickly indeed. The trouble is that the timetable is not in our hands. We have allowed the timetable to be led by the fact that nature is now reacting to what we have done, and doing so in an increasingly extreme way.

I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and consider an overall view of this in a whole lot of other areas, so that we do not have to have this discussion on a permanent basis. Frankly, it ought to be the given for everything we do that we look at in the light of the fact of climate change. If there are Members of the Committee who have still not seen this, I remind them that it is necessary for growth. If we do not do this, we will not be a country in which people will invest, and we will not have new jobs or the kind of society, nature and climate that will be suitable not only for our children and grandchildren but for us. At my age, I can still say that we have to do this, otherwise the climate in which I will go on living will be increasingly unhappy for me, and for my children and grandchildren. Please accept this amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Amendment 187A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to probe the practical meaning of the new definitions, particularly the “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation” of climate change. Repetition signals importance; the fact that the same definition appears three times in such a short clause suggests it would carry significant legal and practical weight. That makes it vital that Parliament understands precisely what is meant. These terms, though laudable, are broad and open to interpretation. Without clear parameters, they risk being applied inconsistently by different authorities. If undefined, in unmeasurable or unenforceable terms, they could slip into the realm of aspiration rather than action, undermining their purpose as guiding principles for planning and infrastructure decisions. Ambiguity would not only weaken decision-making but could result in delays, disputes and costly appeals.

I appreciate that the Government’s Amendment 187 is not grouped here, but it is relevant. That amendment creates a new clause clarifying the relationship between different types of development corporation, ensuring that any overlap is resolved in favour of the higher tier authority. Will the Government consider committing to something similar in relation to these definitions, so that we secure the same kind of clarity and consistency?

--- Later in debate ---

A comprehensive legal framework requiring local authorities to take action on air quality already exists. Specifically, local authorities already have statutory duties relating to air quality in their local area, and under national planning policy air quality is a material consideration in planning decisions. The Government are committed to reducing the harmful health and environmental impacts of air pollution and will continue working with local authorities to achieve this. Given that local government statutory duties relating to air quality already exist, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling the combined issues of environmental decline and climate change impacts, we do not think a statutory duty on local authorities to deliver environmental and air quality targets, climate adaptation and net zero is needed.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

The noble Lord mentions the local authorities that are doing the job but he does not mention the local authorities that are not. It would not do any harm to increase the pressure on them—it would do a great deal of good. I was a Minister for 16 years and I know the case he is putting forward. It is a very interesting case, normally pressed by civil servants, who say to the Minister that we really do not need this as we already have this, that and the other. I say to the noble Lord that it would not do any harm, and it may well do some good and might remind certain local authorities, such as Kent and Lancashire, that they ought to be doing this instead of doing exactly the opposite and saying that they are doing the opposite. This is the moment to remind them.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said, As I said, these requirements are a duty on all public authorities, and I am sure we will keep revising this. We know how important it is that we get this right. We will continue to press it with local authorities and all public organisations to achieve that end.

Amendment 187A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to probe the need to make additional climate change provision in respect of the new towns development corporation. This model is currently the only one that has any climate change objectives built into its legislation. Through the Bill, we are going further by including climate change mitigation and adaptation in the already existing aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The same objectives will be replicated for all the other development corporation models which currently have no specific objectives in relation to climate change written into their legislative framework. Where development corporations are conferred the role of local planning authority for local plans, they will automatically fall under the planning legislation duties which place specific obligations in relation to sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, not all development corporations will take on the local planning role.

With this in mind, regardless of whether the development corporation takes on planning functions, they will all be required to meet this objective. The UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events. The effects of extreme weather and nature loss are already here and have impacted all our lives. But there are small wins which can have a big impact. By updating the current framework and making it consistent across the development corporation models and the National Planning Policy Framework, our message is clear that we will place sustainable development and climate change at the heart of all development corporations and guide the use of their powers.

I hope my explanation has reassured the noble Baronesses sufficiently, and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

A similar amendment to Amendment 52 was discussed in Committee. I explained that I do not believe that this is the right approach, as it may actively serve to discourage insurers from offering insurance products, rather than encourage them. However, as noble Lords are aware, the Government’s position on insurance has now changed. The Government are firm in the view that tenants are not second-class citizens and deserve to be able to keep pets when this is reasonable.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister just said that the situation has changed. I have listened very carefully to the debate. The Government thought it was necessary to have insurance; they now say it is not necessary. Therefore, the Government have already admitted that there needs to be something additional to protect the landlord in the case of somebody having a pet. Frankly, the argument does not stand up to say that that is not so. I hope that the Minister will accept that she really has to go back and say that if there is no insurance, there has to be a greater degree of protection for the landlord.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, and I have listened to other noble Lords, but the evidence in the study that I cited is that three-quarters of landlords of those tenants who have pets do not report any damage. Where there is damage, the cost is around £300, which is perfectly within the scope of the normal deposit. We are content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 53. As I stated in Committee, “premium” is already commonly understood to include any insurance premium tax, so this amendment is not strictly required, in our view. However, following the Government’s amendments, which remove the ability of landlords to require tenants to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet, the noble Lord will, I am sure, recognise that this amendment is no longer required. I therefore request that these amendments not be pressed.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I declare my interests in the register in and around housing and things in that area. I will speak to Amendment 278 and the other amendments in my name—Amendments 282, 286 and 291—as they all work together. My amendments would bring the majority of the Bill and the new tenancy regime into force on the day that it passes, with the exception of some areas where regulations or consultation are needed. The purpose of this is to end Section 21 evictions at the earliest possible moment.

I have some interesting research, which I would like to give. No-fault evictions are currently at an eight-year high. Since the previous Government pledged to end no-fault evictions in 2019, 1 million renters have been served a Section 21 eviction notice. Over 100,000 households have been threatened with homelessness due to one of these evictions. Any delays in ending Section 21 will lead to more renters facing an unwanted move, potentially causing hardship and, in some cases, homelessness. Section 21 has meant that privately renting is considered to provide instability. A quarter of all renters have lived in three or more homes in the last five years. I could go on reading like this, but it is not my style, so I will end there.

It was 2,222 days ago when then Prime Minister May said that we were going to get rid of Section 21. The reason that I have brought forward these amendments is that they would not allow ending Section 21 to be kicked into the long grass, as it has been over the last six years. Michael Gove and everybody in the last Government whom I spoke to said, “Yes, yes—we ought to do something about it”. I am very concerned that what will happen is that we will say that Section 21 needs to go through some more debates and that we need to wait for the legal process, but then even more people will end up being thrown out of their homes.

I raise another question, which I find very frightening. I am the product of a slum house and slum landlords. I was born in 1946; when in 1951 we did not pay the rent, we were thrown out in the streets, and all our goods were put out there. This would really upset people in the Labour Government at the time, but they did not do an awful lot about it. The Conservatives came in, and they did not do an awful lot about it—the fact that a family could be laid out on the streets without the law becoming in any way involved.

When the Conservatives came in, they passed a rent Act—I think it was in 1955—which changed things; when Labour came in, in 1965 it was changed again. You could look at it as the goodies and the baddies: for a Conservative Administration, the goodies are the landlords and the baddies are the tenants; for the Labour Party or a Labour Government, the landlords are the baddies and the tenants are the goodies. I have watched this and been involved in this process for decade after decade. From my experience, I feel that we need to arrive at a situation, but we are not going to unless we really rethink how we deal with tenancies, landlords and tenants. The important thing to me is that we stop this coming and going, this balancing—this seeking of who is in the wrong and who is in the right. Both sides of the argument must get together, and this is where I want the work to be done, where tenants and landlords are advantaged by the stability that comes, and it is not engined by the fact that it depends on which Government are in as to who are the goodies and who are the baddies.

This has been a major problem for me over many years. In 1965, when the Labour Government under Harold Wilson brought in the Rent Act, it meant in fact that you had this peculiar situation where all the support went to the tenant, and for hundreds of thousands of people who were landlords and had property, it was removed, and enormous pressure was put on social housing. So for social housing, the local authorities—it was not housing associations—had to keep raising the bar. My brothers, who were on the council housing list in Hammersmith and Fulham in 1965 and were number 101 and I think 105, were scratched because the pressure on social housing was so enormous. Social housing ended up largely with people who were incredibly troubled, not ordinary working-class people, often single mothers with a number of children, and you had this development of the creation of almost ghettos of people who were living in social housing rather than the social mix of the social housing I moved into at the age of 10.

I use this opportunity to say that I want to get rid of Section 21 because it legalises insecurity. But overall, I also want us to be looking carefully at how we can begin a process of balance and equilibrium between tenant and landlord, because they both need each other. How many tenants are paying for people to buy houses? How many tenants are helping landlords put money aside for their pension? How many tenants are putting the children through university, because it is one of the few places where you can get prosperity? Unless we get to a situation where we get the equilibrium, then over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, as politics change and as Governments change, we are going to be having this kind of arsy-versy sort of world of one being the bully and the other being the hero or victim. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

There is a point here which I hope the Minister will listen to carefully: the speed with which legislation is put into operation. I make this point only because it has been true over a whole range of issues. It is true on new housebuilding: we change the building regulations, and it is five years before they actually come into operation, because of the way in which we deal with our legislation.

Let us take the disgraceful situation of successive Governments, of both parties, on Dalits. We passed the change so that Dalits could claim compensation for the way they were treated because of their caste. We changed the law in this House. It still has not come into operation—it has been put off and put off because of the way the legislation works.

I hope the Minister will recognise that what has been so ably introduced is two things. First, I entirely agree that we want a proper balance and a way forward. Tenants need landlords and landlords need tenants; that is obviously so. But I hope she will also take on board the fundamental issue of how quickly changes in legislation go through, and how often you are left with continuing delay. It is not just in this Bill—and she is not responsible for other Bills—but I hope she will take back the genuine concern of many of us about the length of time it takes for decisions that we make to affect ordinary people, which is, after all, why we make them.

Future Homes Standard

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

Let us hear from the Lib Dem Benches first—then we will hear from the noble Lord.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There were two clear points there. One is about the training, apprenticeships and skills that we need to deliver in order to meet the retrofitting programme. We are working with colleagues in the Department for Education on that. We know there is a big challenge across the construction sector, first, to deliver 1.5 million new homes but also, secondly, in the retrofitting area. We are determined to meet that challenge and offer the new jobs that I spoke about earlier.

The noble Lord spoke about the private rented sector. Next week we will be introducing the renters’ rights Bill. There are significant new powers in that Bill for tenants to challenge their landlords when they feel that the improvements their homes need are not being dealt with as quickly as they should be. We continue to monitor that situation, because it is important that people can have homes that are fit for purpose and are warm, decent and comfortable.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, when we finally get the new homes standard, will the Minister ensure that it comes into operation immediately and does not take about five years to roll out, as the previous ones have? Will she also take up with the companies which build houses that, since 2017, they have built 1.5 million houses that are not fit for the future, taken the profits and left the people who have bought those houses to meet the costs of retrofitting? Is it not a scandal? Should there not be a fund which they give to that can repay the people who have bought these houses, so that they can do what needs to be done to them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some very important points. I have a lot of sympathy with what he says about how we take this forward. I think I was very clear in what I said: the intention of our Government is to make sure that there will be no further retrofitting needed when new homes are built. They will be built to the standard we set as soon as that standard comes into being. The discussions I have had with the construction industry lead me to believe that it is waiting for that standard and will be ready for it as soon as we are able to set it. I hope that will be the case. I will take the other ideas the noble Lord put forward back to my department.

European Union

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We need to recognise that the public were clear that they voted for Brexit, which is why this Government are not seeking to relitigate or renegotiate the entirety of the Brexit deal—but we do want to make Brexit work.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Is it not true that we are culturally part of Europe and that the culture connections are very important, but that at the moment they are held up because of the “Wrecksiteers” and their attitudes to all this? Can we please get on with this and not fuss about?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord does not think that we are fussing about. Culturally and geographically, this country is clearly part of Europe. I think the Question specified the EU, which is why my responses have related to that.

Lease Extension Policies for Residential Properties

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I do not have particular information about scallop dredging. However, a Crown Estate Bill will come forward as part of the King’s Speech legislation. This will modernise the Crown Estate by removing some of the outdated restrictions on its activities. The measures that will come forward will widen investment powers and give the Crown Estate powers to borrow to invest at a faster pace. Those reforms will ensure the successful future of Crown Estate business and help meet the clean energy superpower mission. I will come back to the noble Lord with a Written Answer on the issue of scallop dredging.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, it would not be reasonable to ask the Minister to talk in detail about scallop dredging, but I think it would be reasonable to ask her to make sure that the regulations, when changed under the new law, enable the Crown Estate to stop the terrible destruction on the seabed, which is very damaging in respect of climate change. All sorts of bottom trawling ought to be banned. The Crown Estate ought to have the power, as it owns the seabed, to say, “No more of that kind of behaviour”.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. The Government want to do everything they can to protect the environment and tackle climate change. As we go through the process of the Crown Estate Bill, I am sure noble Lords will want to get involved in the consultation and submit amendments. I encourage the noble Lord to do so.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

As I said, it is a matter of great regret that this debate is taking place before the Select Committee report appears next week. I encourage noble Lords to read it when it appears. I think they will find a great deal of evidence in it that is relevant to what we are discussing today.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, we ought to remember that we are discussing the amendments that the Government have put before us, rather than a committee report that we have not got and which will, no doubt, be of great interest.

We have to recognise that there may well be an issue here that needs properly to be addressed. My concern is that this is not the way to address it. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested that when we deal with the environment, we should consider it very carefully, go out to consultation and make sure that what we are doing is right. None of that has happened here. The Government have put down a whole series of amendments to this Christmas tree of a Bill and some of us are suggesting that we should not do this—although, were they to come forward with something that met the particular problems in a way that was not so manifestly bad, I am sure we would be supportive.

I rather object to the fact that the newspapers say that I am a Conservative rebel. It is the Government who are the rebel here, because they are not being conservative over this. First, they are asking local authorities—I can hardly believe it—to disregard the facts. This is the kind of attitude that we see in the Republican Party in the United States, the people who do not believe in climate change, the anti-vaxxers, who say “Don’t look at the facts”. The second thing that local authorities are being asked to do is encourage ignorance: not only “Don’t look at the facts” but “Don’t look at any evidence or find any evidence—just do what the Government say should be done”.

The argument the Government have put forward is that we need this to build more houses. I was the Secretary of State responsible for that. I had a long history of dealing with the housebuilders, who tell us that this will increase the number of houses. The number of houses built has nothing to do with this at all—it is about whether the housebuilders think that that number will keep the price up at the level at which they have it. The housebuilders are not building the houses they have already got planning permission for in areas which are not in any way affected by this. We know that perfectly well. It is a canard, if I may use a foreign word, to suggest that this will have any effect on the number of houses. The number of houses in this country is not reaching 300,000 because the housebuilders have bought the land at a price which means that they can sell only at a level which is too elevated for the present time, with mortgages as they are. Let us not kid ourselves that, by voting against this, we will in some way reduce the number of houses, because we will not.

I find it extremely difficult when I am told that the housebuilders should not pay for the damage they do. Three arguments are used. First is the housemaid’s argument: it is only a very little bit—“It is only a very little baby”—and therefore we do not have to take it into account. As a former chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I have to say that that is the argument everybody uses every time you want to do anything—“It isn’t me”; “They are bigger than we are”; “Don’t do it in Britain because of China”; “Don’t do it because of the farmers”; “Don’t do it for anyone, but don’t ask me to pay for my pollution”.

Secondly, I thought that the Conservative Party was in favour of the polluter pays. Were my noble friend the Minister canvassing in the Mid Bedfordshire by-election at this moment, would she turn to an elector and say, “In future, housebuilders building in the Wye Valley or near the Monnow will not have to contribute for the cost and the damage they do, but you will through your taxes. You, the Mid Bedfordshire voter in the by-election, will now be asked to subsidise the housebuilders”? That is what these amendments are about—the subsidising of the housebuilders.

In the end, we could go even further. Why do we not have a Bill to say that housebuilders can ignore health and safety arrangements because then more housing would be built? Why do we not say that local authorities must not know what the health and safety laws are and must not investigate what they might be so that houses might be built?

This is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen, and I have been around a long time. It is entirely unconservative. If all this was so obvious so long ago, why was it not included in the Bill in the first place, or in some other Bill? As we have, in my view, some pretty peculiar legislation on ex-EU laws, why have the Government not used their powers therein?

I sat through debate after debate on how we were going to protect the British people instead of the court in Brussels and on how we would have proper protection against government mishandling of the environment. We were assured that Glenys Stacey and her department would be treated with all the respect that one would have expected. We were told that she would have all the powers necessary for the Government to take her seriously. What have they done? Two pathetic letters, and no statement—this is a judgment that you should make and we will change things because that is why you are there. That means that the British people are now less protected from government mistakes than any country in the rest of Europe. I make no comment about Brexit, but that is where this House and the other place have left the people of Britain.

I do not believe that the Government can do these things and not expect future generations to say, “If they could do that on this issue, what about other things?” They could say that local authorities can ignore this, that and the other and do not need the facts. Indeed, we do not have the facts here—there is no proof about these houses or any of this; it is an assertion by the Secretary of State.

I am not a Conservative rebel—I am a Conservative. Therefore, I am voting for the principle of the polluter pays, for facts and for knowledge, and I am not voting for ignorance and the disregard of facts.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not an easy act to follow, but I shall try.

We were lied to in this House. Our Government promised us repeatedly that there would be no lessening of environmental protection at any time. They promised us that and they lied. As a result of Brexit, we are now almost unprotected. Loads of us knew at the time that they were lying.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

As far as I understand these amendments, they are an intention to return the planning system to the time before 2022 happened—the golden age when the system worked. I must say that I was looking for some fairy dust. I will explain by going back to 2010, when an incoming coalition Government discovered that only 15%—I think it was 15%—of local authorities had an up-to-date local plan. That is when the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which I was then a junior Minister, came up with a way to encourage local planning authorities to speed-up their local plan process.

That was after a 30-year statutory requirement—it is 30 years old—that they should have such a local plan. This was essentially to let developers loose in areas where there was no up-to-date local plan. I have scars from an Adjournment debate in that place, which is a bit like a QSD at this end. As a junior Minister, I drew the always available short straw, and I was faced—or rather I was backed, because they were behind me— by 20, 30, 40, although it seemed like a thousand, angry MPs complaining that the Government were blackmailing their district council by setting developers loose. It was like Dunkirk, only there were no boats.

The coalition Government kept their nerve, and so that system endured until 22 December, I think—the dispatch date given by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. However, whether the coalition Government held their nerve, or whether, like the Conservative Government, they did not hold their nerve, the outcome was still not 300,000 homes a year. The missing ingredient for us was fairy dust. That system does not deliver 300,000 homes a year. I wish the noble Lords good luck with their amendments, and I shall be interested to see what the Government have to say, but even if passed, it will not deliver 300,000 homes a year. That seems to me to be the fundamental point. I absolutely take the analysis delivered so powerfully by the proponents of this. Unfortunately, the lever that they intend us to use for it is already deficient, and we have seen it. So, please, where is the fairy dust?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, particularly that I chair a company that advises people on sustainable planning. I must say to my noble friends, with whom I very often agree, that I find this debate extremely difficult. First, this Bill should never have been in this form at all. No previous Government would have provided a long title for a Bill that means that it takes this long to go through Parliament and that, every time they think of something, they can add it to the Bill. We must be very clear about this Bill. Historically, we used to have the tightness of a title which enabled you to keep responsibly and respectably within the subject. So I start with this difficulty.

Secondly, this concentration on the numbers misses the point. Since the Government got rid of the net-zero requirement for houses, we have built over a million and a half homes that are not fit for the future. Every one of them has meant that the housebuilders have taken the profit, while the cost of putting those homes right has been left with the purchaser of the home. That is a scandal which is shared between the Government, who were foolish enough to get rid of the net-zero requirement, and the housebuilders, who knew precisely what they were doing. One of them made so much money that it offered its chief executive £140 million as a bonus. He did not get all that in the end, but that was the situation.

My problem is that in the absence of a proper policy, we are talking about the wrong thing. We should not be talking about the numbers, except to say that we need significantly more homes. We should be talking about the quality of the homes and the places where they should be. I go back to my own experience as Housing Minister. We were very interested in ensuring that we built homes on already used land. We thought it important to recreate our cities. We thought that was just as important a part of this as the numbers. At the moment, I can drive back from my local railway station and see every little village, every little town, spreading out into the countryside, homes being built on good agricultural land and homes being built which are, by their nature, the creators of commuters, as there is nowhere else for people to work.

If I may say so to my noble friend, it is no good ignoring that many district councils have a real problem with the number of places in which they can build the homes that they were asked to build. A lot are NIMBYs, and some I quite agree you would not like, but if you are faced with building homes in a council where most of the area is green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty or historic areas, you find yourself in a huge difficulty. I agree that many of them do not try as hard as they ought to, but let us not kid ourselves as to what the local issue is—not just wanting to win that particular ward but a matter of real difficulty.

For that reason, I say to my noble friend that I am sad that in this elongated, extended, overblown Bill, we have not had time to do four things: put in the future homes requirements to raise the standards of housebuilding so that they are fit for the future; create a system whereby housebuilders should provide the resources for rebuilding the insides of many of the homes that they built over the last five or 10 years; and understand that we should reuse land and think about place-making where people are within a quarter of an hour of the resources they need. Then, we can talk about how we can have a relationship with local authorities that can build the number of houses that we need.

I intend to support the Government on this amendment because I am not prepared to be put into a position where the answer to our problems is numbers. That is not the answer. The answer is a housing policy which looks at sustainability, the ability to buy and the future, not a collection of odd clauses stuck together and added when it happens to be convenient.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have a much less eloquent and much less exciting question to the proponents of Amendment 195, and certainly no fairy dust. If you are linking national targets to the local plan, what happens when national targets change during the five-year plan period? Does the plan have to be rewritten, do parts of it have to be rewritten, or do you have to wait until the end of the period and then apply the new target? It is a purely technical question and, as I say, much less exciting than some of the material we have just heard, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, could help me with that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. I support this amendment because I think there is a huge need for people to know where they are. It is very simple but there is so much of this in government—and probably elsewhere—that people find it very hard to understand and react properly because they do not know where they are. In the planning system, this is particularly notable.

As my noble friend Lord Lansley made his speech, it all sounded so obvious and natural. It is exactly what we should do. Therefore, we know what the Government’s answer will be: “We will do that, so we do not need to put it into the Bill”. I am afraid I am becoming less and less willing to accept the promises of Ministers based on simply saying they will do something. We recently had a very good example of this. I thought we understood that we were not going to make deleterious environmental decisions in any legislation at all because we could trust Ministers not to do that. It is very debatable that that is now being maintained.

I say to the Minister that if it is something we do anyway, there is no harm in putting it in the Bill. If the Government object to something because they do not do it, then they should explain that they do not do it. However, if the argument is that the Government already do it and therefore do not need to put it in the Bill, I do not think the House should accept it any more. If the Government feel unhappy with that, I suggest that they remember they are not necessarily going to be the Government permanently. Therefore, when they are thinking deleteriously of those who might replace them, surely they would want to ensure that were they to be replaced, the new Government would have to accept the same rules. I do not think they need to feel unhappy; rather, they should say they are ensuring that the system works for everybody, whoever may be running it. It is also a good thing for a Government to recognise that people really want to know where they are, and this is one of the areas where we do not.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very important point about the effectiveness of a plan-led system if local plans are not up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has enhanced that argument by saying that people need to know where they are. If this is only in guidance, but we require there to be local plans—as we do in a plan-led system—why is it not incorporated in statute? I hope the Minister will answer this question.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a fundamental issue. Local plans are at the very heart of a plan-led system. As well as setting out local planning policies, the local plan allocates land for new housing developments; it allocates land for business development, thereby allocating land for jobs; and it allocates land to be protected, such as the green-belt land allocation.

If local authorities are not preparing, or do not have, an up-to-date local plan, then land is not being allocated for development. We will later have debates about housing targets, but one of my concerns about housing targets is that, if local authorities do not have an up to date local plan, land is not being allocated or set aside for housing development. If land is not being set aside for housing development, it is very likely that new houses are not going to be built.

The government website helpfully has an alphabetical list of authorities and the status of their local plans—although it is unhelpful in being able to look at them more carefully. The vast majority do not have an up-to-date local plan. In fact, one or two on the list do not appear to have updated their local plan for several years. What that tells me is that, currently, the expectation is that local authorities will develop a local plan and have it agreed, with a full review after five years. Helpfully, my own authority is not one of those that does not have an up-to-date plan, and it is currently beginning a review a year ahead of expectation.

If land is not allocated for housing, how on earth do we expect housebuilding to take place? I hope the Minister will be able to help me with this, because some time ago in a previous debate on this, I thought I recalled the Minister stating that a five-year supply of land will no longer be a requirement and will be waived by the Government. As I understand it, at the moment that is the only stick to encourage—or force, even—local authorities to allocate land for housing in a local plan. Currently, although it may be waived—and I am waiting for the Minister to respond to that—as I understand it, if a local authority does not have a sufficient supply of land for a five-year allocation according to government housing targets, then developers can choose where to develop. It is open season for housebuilding. If that one stick is being waived—and I hope I have remembered that correctly—then I would like to hear from the Minister on how they will encourage local authorities to have up-to-date plans, because without them, I do not see how we will meet housebuilding targets.

The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised, are fundamental. When he replies, will he say whether he wishes to test the opinion of the House on this? Without an up-to-date plan, all the Government’s housing targets approach—which my party does not necessarily agree with—comes to nothing. Only the authorities that do the right thing, having difficult discussions with communities about allocating land for housing and other development, will supply the houses that need to be built. Everyone across parties accepts the importance of building more houses; how we get there is the issue. However, I would love to hear from the Minister how that will be enforced without an up-to-date local plan. If the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in responding wishes to push this further, we will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I too rise to support Amendment 190, to which I have added my name. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I do not have to speak for very long as everything I was going to say has already been said. The House sounds as though it is unanimous in the view: that there needs to be some sort of constraint on the proposal in this clause, to ensure that there is consultation; that local communities should have primacy in deciding what happens in their area; and that the policy that general consultation should be in the hands of Secretary of State, without the definition of what that consultation should be, is one that no parliamentary assembly should readily accept.

I believe there is a principle in this amendment, that we can trust my noble friend the Minister, and we can probably trust my noble friend the Secretary of State in the other place; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, they will change. They will inevitably change. They may change for the better or for the worse; we do not know. But one thing is certain: if you give a power to centralise decision-taking, sooner or later that power will be abused. It is essential to make sure that we do not pass legislation in this House that allows the abuse of power—particularly, the forcing on to local communities of policies that they reject themselves.

It may well be—indeed, I think there is considerable evidence—that our planning laws do not work; we need only look at the problems over the environment, housing and so on. We should absolutely be looking at how our planning laws should be changed and how we should free up, speed up and make less expensive the whole planning process. But the way to do that is not by giving powers to the Secretary of State to override any consultation, any local decision-making and, indeed, the local power of other constitutionally established bodies such as local government.

I support the amendment for a lot of reasons. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that this issue needs greater clarification, that it needs to be properly addressed, that this amendment almost certainly achieves all of that, and that, possibly with a few tweaks from the Government, this amendment could form part of the Bill to everybody’s benefit.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, some issues continue to affect almost everything we do. One is the principle of subsidiarity—that we should ensure that we do not have a system where all power is centred at the top. That was a very important principle that the Popes upheld when dealing with both the Nazis and the communists, saying that both got rid of all the subsidiarity powers and concentrated them at the centre. Of course those people did so because they were, largely, wicked. The trouble is when it is done by people who think it is the best way forward, and that is what I fear here.

The planning system is obviously not good enough. I declare an interest here, having spent almost a whole year trying to turn a house back into the pub that it was before. You would have thought they would have been keen on all that but, my goodness, there are many complications in trying to do it. However, although we recognise this about the planning system, you do not overcome it by putting on top of that system something that is seen by others as being dictatorial. Unless this power is clearly controlled and confined by the parliamentary procedures that enable it to be used in a way that the public will see is subject to democratic control, then I believe it will fail. It is not just a question of it not being suitable, and it is not just a philosophical question; it is that it will not actually work.

One knows what Ministers have been advised to say: the amendment would make the process more difficult, slower and more complex. Well, sometimes doing things more slowly is a good thing because it gives you time to make sure that you get it right. Sometimes making it more complex is necessary because the issue is more complex, and pretending that it is not means that you make a mistake.

I come back to a question that is particularly affecting me at the moment. We have now seen a number of examples where Ministers have said, “It’s not necessary to do this because we’re going to do it anyway”. I remember Ministers who promised us that we would not sign contracts with other nations that undermined our farmers, but we have done precisely that. We have a case at the moment where Ministers said there would be no diminution of environmental protection and therefore we did not need to put it in the Act, but I fear that is precisely what has happened.

I am in the same position here. I am sure that Ministers intend to do the right thing, and I am sure that Ministers coming from any reasonable party might intend to do so, but, as a former Minister of 16 years, I think it was very good for me to have to do the right thing. That is what I think we ought to put here.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this policy proposal is one of the most contentious issues that we have debated throughout the course of the Bill. So far, it has been a very thoughtful and considered debate about the importance or otherwise of having a centralised group of planning policies imposed on local authorities.

This approach, of having a set of national policies that are imposed on local planning authorities, is not new and does not have a happy history. Even from before my time in local government, some will remember the imposition of county structure plans. Local authorities had to agree to those plans and abide by what was stated in them. That did not end very well. Then in 2004 there was the introduction of regional spatial strategies—this just goes to show that all parties in government have a tendency to centralise—which I remember debating, and they did not end well either. My serious point is that these are messages from history for the Minister and the Government showing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has said, trying to impose on local communities the Government’s idea of national policies that must be adhered to does not have a happy history.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall just quote some figures on this. They are open to interpretation, but one set I saw calculated that the EU is planning to spend over 10 years the equivalent of $440 billion in public spending. In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act accounts for $336 billion. This is a modest amendment, a “draw up a plan, look to see what we could do” amendment. I am going to put this in the framework of time. The EU and the US have already acted. We know that in a year’s time, more or less, one way or another we will have a new Government. I am not even, since I am being emollient, going to make any suggestion about what that new Government might be, but what your Lordships’ House could do, what the Government could do by backing this amendment, is set out a plan directing the Civil Service to look in a strategic way, given the current situation we are in globally, at what the UK could be doing. That could set up the new Government, whatever they look like, to be ready to act. Surely, we need to act, given that we are clearly world trailing on green industrial strategy and we desperately need to catch up.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my past as chairman of the Climate Change Committee merely to say, in very short terms, why I think it is important to take seriously the way in which the planning Acts affect decisions made by the whole nation when it comes to dealing with climate change, both adaptation and mitigation. There is no doubt that we will have to make all our decisions through that lens, because that is the only way we are going to be able to fight the existential threat we now face. No one who has looked at the effects of climate change this year, all over the world, can possibly misunderstand the reality of the threat. If we are going to deal with that, it is not just about policy or programmes but action and delivery.

This Government have been extremely good on their policy and programmes. We cannot complain about a Government who have set the best targets in the world, who led the world in Glasgow, who first set a net-zero target for 2050. We really have to accept that this Government have done all those things, but the criticism is delivery. Doing those things is essential. Setting those targets is crucial. Leading the world in all those ways has been a privilege for all of us, but we now have to deliver. In this amendment there is a real chance to do one of the pieces of delivery which is vital.

I say to my noble friend, with whom I have worked for many years, including in the Department for Environment, when we began the journey to where we have got today, imagine putting the word “not” into Amendment 191:

“The Secretary of State must”


not

“have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to”.

Imagine doing the same in sub-paragraph (2):

“When making a planning decision”,


he must not “have special regard”. We would find that utterly unacceptable, because we know perfectly well that this is central to the future of this country and of the world, and we therefore have to have that. No doubt we will be told that the Government have got that. Well, once again—which is why I intervened earlier, in wicked preparation for this one—it is not good enough just to have the intention. We know which road

“is paved with good intentions”,

and that is not a road we ought to travel, although it is the road down which we are all travelling at this moment. Therefore, I say to my noble friend that I very much hope that he will understand why it is crucial for us to make it clear that the planning system must be used throughout its length and breadth to ensure that we make the decisions upon which the future of our children—and, indeed, ourselves, even those as old as I am—really depends.

I finish by saying this. People attack some of the techniques and ways of behaviour of the extremist organisations, and I join them in that. It is not what I believe in. But what I object to is that people do not ask themselves why they are doing it. It is because there is a whole generation that does not believe that the democratic system can deliver what needs to be delivered on climate change, and we in this House and in the other place have got to overcome that. That is why this amendment is so important as part of reassuring and reasserting that the democratic system can deliver and that you do not have to take to the streets, you do not have to behave in the way that all of us deplore; you have instead to accept this kind of amendment. I hope the Government will see why it is crucial.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene for a moment in support of Amendment 191, to which I have added my name, and to say a couple of things, partly by way of reiteration of what the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said in what I thought was a very capable exposition of the reasoning and purpose behind the amendment.

First, of course we already have in legislation, and have had for some time, a duty in plan making to contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, but I am afraid it is not doing enough. That much is evident, and what the noble Lord said, which is absolutely right, is that some local planning authorities who want to do the most to change their approach to plan making and spatial development in order to mitigate and adapt to climate change are finding that the structure of planning law makes that more difficult.

In resisting the amendment, my noble friends may say that it would lead to litigation. Well, first, it all leads to litigation. Secondly, the problem at the moment is that, for a local planning authority, going down the path of doing the really necessary things to mitigate climate change involves transgressing other objectives under planning law. For example, we can have a big debate about the green belt, but sometimes—as Cambridge’s examination before its local plan process demonstrated—if you really want to make a difference, the structure of development must focus on urban extensions and along public transport corridors—and if you try to do that around London, you hit the green belt. So you have to balance these things.

If we are serious about adaptation to or mitigation of climate change, we must raise it in the hierarchy of considerations—which is exactly what the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, sets out to do. It is not an objection to the amendment that we create a hierarchy that could give rise to challenges; it is its purpose and objective and that is why we should do it.

I will reiterate a second point he made so that noble Lords understand the value of the amendment. It takes a principle presently applied to plan-making and applies it both to the Secretary of State’s policy-making functions, including national development management policies, and to determinations of planning permissions. It puts it right in the midst of the whole structure, from the Secretary of State making policies to local authorities making plans and looking at planning applications and determining them. That is the only way competently to address the range and scale of issues that climate change presents to us. It takes it from policy through to individual decisions, and that is why I think it deserves our support.