Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I want to say something about what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the default risk aversion, and how there is a significant risk of that with regulators. There is a lot of merit in those comments. Largely, that stems from the application of the precautionary principle in much of the field of law that we are discussing now. Materially diluting the precautionary principle in a substantial way would have all sorts of troublesome consequences, but, in my judgment, some kind of counterbalance, which is what the proportionality principle is seeking to do, would help temper the effects of that. There is a later amendment in the noble Lord’s name which would seek to modify the precautionary principle in quite a sensible way. But I agree that something needs to be done to ensure that that over-precautionism does not infect the application of these provisions.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 10 to 16 are in this group. These are more about Clause 2, so the officials decided to group them together.

On Amendment 8, I respect the former Minister’s experience, and probably frustrations, but, candidly, having represented a part of the country where there are probably more NSIPs than in any other constituency, I am very concerned that trying to make sure that there are enough resources and even officials to sufficiently go through these combinations of NSIPs, which, of course, are all considered separately, is really quite a stretch. I am also conscious of what was mentioned earlier, about the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that were generated to go with a variety of planning applications.

I remind the Committee that it is Parliament that has agreed to a lot of this legislation. Parliament has agreed for Natural England, for example, to be the regulator and, in effect, the decision-maker on a number of these matters. It is also usually Ministers who have designated many parts of our country to have these special areas of conservation, or whatever variety of designations there are, which bring in the extra challenge. I completely understand the point about the reasonableness test and proportionality—I completely get that—and that is why the last Administration tried to make some changes, particularly to unlock about 160,000 homes, but also placed various duties in terms of thinking about economic growth. So, as I say, I understand why there are concerns about timing but if we are going to adjust that, we need to make sure that the resourcing is there as well.

Clause 2 is all about the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. I expect that certain elements of the process could be speeded up, but there are key points in here which actually remove accountability to Parliament by the Executive. I had not realised this when I tabled Amendment 13 but I then checked some of the procedures in the Commons, and on Report there, the Liaison Committee—the chair of every single Select Committee in the House of Commons—co-signed Amendment 87 in the other place to remove this so that the Government would have to continue to give a response to Parliament on any resolutions they passed. I find it extraordinary that the Government want to remove that. It is quite a simple thing to lay a Statement, or whatever it is.

The assessment of Minister Pennycook was, “Well, we have a variety of debates; we might ask the Select Committee to look at something”—by the way, he did not refer to the Select Committee in the Lords—“and, yeah, we have these sorts of Statements”. Statements are quite different at the other end, but still, they are not proper debates—they are not proper consideration—and I am concerned about that.

One of my other amendments in this group follows on from something that happened with the first national policy statement on nuclear that I was engaged in. There was a debate in the other House, and I suspect there may have been a debate at this end too. Along the way, something changed in the process. It relied entirely on the Liaison Committee getting a Select Committee to look at something and send it back, so that the Government would then respond to say that, as a consequence of that, they were making all these changes, but it then never came back to the House. There was a process where you could do something once the Secretary of State had laid it, but for Back-Benchers there was no mechanism to get a debate on the final national policy statement—it was impossible. It could have been done in the name of the Government, but it was not done—they were a Conservative Government, so do not worry; I had a pop at them at the time.

I do not understand why, given that the impact of national policy statements is so huge, the Government are going further in removing a key part of parliamentary scrutiny. I genuinely hope that the Government will think again. I would have no problem if the Government had other ways of dealing with the timing but we have to remember—we see it more in this House, where we have a wider range of not just parties but Cross-Benchers, and until this Parliament that has not been the same at the other end—that it is not fair on minority parties, particularly those representing constituencies where such NSIPs are being proposed, to remove their opportunity to stand up and represent their communities on what the future impact might be of a number of national policy statements.

My other amendments are somewhat technical, regarding not wanting the effects to be retrospective and so on. I will not cover every minutia, but that is what they intend to do, and to get some clarity from the Government on what they are planning to do with the timing.

On the wider point, Amendment 16 is where I am trying to pull together some of the threads of what this Bill should be about: improving nature, improving the speed of infrastructure and increasing the number of homes. In its recent report, the Office for Environmental Protection said that it would like the Government to make it standard practice that, when dealing with new policies, they routinely produce, publish and consider assessments within departments. That is necessary, because every Minister is legally required to consider the correlation between their policies and those in the environmental principles policy statement. That is in law. There is no way in this House to do that, apart from through trust, to see how it works together. It matters that we work together on making this happen.

There are frustrations that people might have. I appreciate that there is a legal case at the moment about whether what is in the Bill is compliant and whether it will reduce the impact of environmental law. I am not getting into that. However, one thing Ministers can experience is external bodies issuing legal action. They start off with a pre-action protocol letter. Under that, there is a duty of candour on the Government to release lots of information that the Minister will have considered on whether they were being compliant with the law in how they addressed the matter. That is not available to Parliament. I want to make it available to Parliament. I had a debate with the clerks about whether we should use the words “duty of candour” or similar. In essence, when we are trying to scrutinise not only the role of the Executive but how legislation is being applied, it is fair to this House and the other House to have a basis of information so that if, for whatever reason, the Minister decides, “We’re not going to worry about that bit, but we’re doing that consciously because we believe there’s a greater good under various articles”, we can accept that but be transparent about it.

This comes up in a similar principle later, under planning applications—based, by the way, on something that the chief executive of Natural England said in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place. What I am trying to do is get the cards on the table. Let us make sure the Environment Act 2021 and the targets in primary legislation are not all of a sudden ditched because of the rush to do X, Y and Z without this House or the other House knowing about it, so it can be challenged and potentially revised, and, if necessary, we can come forward with other amendments to legislation to make the Government comply with the law without waiting until whatever deadline it is, only for them to say, sorry, but they have not managed to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The reason I know so much about this and there was a debate on the national networks is that I kicked off a hell of a fuss and the Leader of the House then pledged that the Government, despite it not being in the law, would do these resolutions. My concern is about the fact that so much depends on what the Front Bench decides to do with time. That is why I am concerned about it, but I appreciate what the Minister has said.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

17: Clause 3, page 5, leave out lines 28 to 32
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to probe why it is necessary for Government-imposed NSIPs to have no planning consent or public engagement.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

With Amendment 17 I will also debate Amendments 18 to 23 in my name. These have been described as a “redirection”; I am not exactly sure what that means, but there is a theme that I hope will become clear. I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for adding their names to Amendments 17 and 23.

As the Explanatory Notes and various bits of memoranda make clear, this clause is designed to try to speed up aspects of planning, and I understand that flexibility may be wanted. I was a bit surprised when Minister Pennycook in the other place suggested in Committee, talking about offshore generation, that perhaps the MMO could become the planning authority in that regard. The MMO is simply not big enough to get into that.

The theme through my amendments is the fact that a Secretary of State has some literally very special powers, called special development orders. That is why I have tabled some quite detailed amendments. While the narrative, including in Committee and in various memoranda, has been that it can go to an alternative consenting authority, the reason I have tabled these amendments is that there is an alternative consenting authority: the Secretary of State himself or herself.

Amendment 17 tries to probe why the Bill refers to Section 59. You do not need to go through the NSIP and DCO process because the Secretary of State could, more or less, just authorise this tomorrow, without any public consultation, engagement and all sorts of things. The Secretary of State already has the power to do that. I expect that it is usually used for things such as MoD land, so the reasons may be somewhat related to national security infrastructure and so on, but I am concerned that this hands a heck of a lot of power to the Secretary of State, and we should at least be considering that carefully.

That is particularly true when thinking about nuclear and other energy generation, which my Amendment 23 covers. The amount of land taken by most energy projects is pretty significant, not just land for the station itself or the transmission network but the preparation land. That is why I would like to see a commitment, ideally in law, that this will never apply to where a Secretary of State themselves can, on request, give planning permission to something from a developer.

I turn to another aspect of my amendments. This is a novel process—I think that is the explanation in various memoranda—and it will be done by regulations. Putting in the Bill three months for the Secretary of State to make a particular decision seems reasonable if the whole point of this is that it be done quicker. By the way, that is just considering whether something should go through the DCO process or an alternative consenting authority.

In the debate on the first group, I clumsily mentioned the Minister’s commitment to write. It was actually Minister Pennycook, in the House of Commons Committee where this was considered, who pledged several times in the debate on this clause to write to the Committee. That letter may have been sent to the members of the Committee, but it certainly has never appeared on the Bill website or been deposited in the Libraries of either House. He pledged to give more examples of how this would work in practice. The reason for me probing this today is that we could end up with some kind of Stalinist Secretary of State who is determined to build whatever they like anywhere and everywhere. As it stands, through this amendment and this new clause, we will give them the powers to do that, and I do not think we should. That is why I wanted to look at this clause.

I turn to Article 6 of the convention on human rights. Again, a back-up memorandum says:

“These alternative consenting regimes are likely to be … the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Highways Act 1980, Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964”.


But it does not say that it will be only that, which, again, is part of my concern.

So, in a variety of ways, this is probing to see whether we can properly get, in effect, a commitment from the Government on the Floor of this House or through a letter from the Minister—if it is not in legislation—that can candidly be used in a future court case when somebody might want to oppose the Secretary of State doing something so draconian. It would show that it was made clear to this House and this Parliament that that would never happen. So far, none of the back-up memoranda or Explanatory Notes makes that explicit, and that is what I hope to achieve today.

I am particularly concerned about energy projects. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is no longer in his place, but I explained on the previous group that I have extensive experience of trying to handle NSIPs as a Member of Parliament and now as a Peer in this place, and I am still very concerned about my local community and what is happening in that regard. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for explaining this group. That leaves me no need to go through it again, but I am pleased to support her Amendments 17 and 23. I will be brief, but I wanted to say something about both of them, especially Amendment 17. This amendment is vital because it probes the fundamental issue of democratic accountability and local consent. If the government-imposed national significant infrastructure projects can proceed without planning consent or public engagement, we risk undermining public trust by excluding communities from decisions that directly affect them. This also weakens local accountability by sidelining local authorities and stakeholders, and it increases the risks of legal and political challenges, as the lack of consultation may well lead to resistance or even to judicial review.

Probing this issue is essential to ensure that any such powers are used only when they are truly justified—when they are proportionate to the situation and exercised with true transparency. I raised this concern in the opening group today, and it is one on which we really need some clear answers. I ask again, why is it necessary for government-imposed NSIPs to bypass both planning consent and public engagement? How is this consistent with the Government’s continued claims that localism is protected?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has found helpful my explanation of the operation of this clause and the justification for why these regulation-making powers are unnecessary. I therefore kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment. I apologise for the length of the explanation, but it is a complex area.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. On Amendment 19, I gently say that it would be “within” three months, so ideally it could be within a day—however, I do not want to quibble unduly.

There is definitely concern about what sort of development orders could be in place. The Government are currently publishing in the Bill, and elsewhere, all sorts of things about devolution, and there is still some anxiety about whether local development orders or simplified planning zones could become part of this when they would not necessarily be suitable. Perhaps I will write to the Minister and we can have nice cup of tea and chat further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25, in my name, relate to Clause 4, in which the Government seek to remove certain pre-application requirements. I am concerned about two of these. The first omits the duty to consult and the second omits the duty to consult the local community. These are very significant changes to pre-application requirements that were introduced in the Planning Act 2008. In my experience, pre-application is an extremely helpful part of the process, as it enables information to be shared and discussed by the communities that will be affected and their elected representatives—councillors and Members of Parliament.

The value of a pre-application duty to consult seems to me to be vital, particularly in relation to infrastructure schemes. The opportunity for communities that are affected to understand the proposals and their impact is much reduced by the process that is followed for large-scale infrastructure applications. For example, the process for large-scale infrastructure is set out very well in the Explanatory Notes, which talks about the pre-application process followed by the submission and acceptance of the application, then the pre-examination stage where members of the public can register as interested parties—although that is subject to some change—and then the examination in public. The opportunities for the general public, as opposed to those who feel they are able to take part in an examination in public, are extremely limited. Therefore, the pre-application stage becomes even more important in relation to large-scale infrastructure applications.

In my experience, the importance of the pre-application process is that it can be invaluable to both the developer and the local community. I will refer to an example not of a large-scale infrastructure application but for 400 homes on a site near where I live. There was a pre-application consultation stage with members of the public. The application was for a site that was known to have been used for coal workings, and the official coal board documents did not identify precisely where all the mine shafts were—they actually did not even know how many there were. However, residents whose families had lived in the area for a long time knew where the mine shafts were and shared that local knowledge with the developer. They were also able to share information, which did not seem to exist formally at all, of the shallow tunnelling on the site.

In this instance, the housing developer gained considerably from the pre-application process in knowing where the mine shafts were that would have to be capped off, and knowing where the shallow tunnels for the coal workings were, which could require attention during the construction phase. The local residents benefited because it enabled them to understand and be provided with factual information by the applicant.

In my view, the changes proposed in the Bill to remove the duty to consult with the local community would be totally counterproductive. Members of the community will get information about the proposals which may not be accurate if there is not a pre-application opportunity. I know from experience that, once inaccurate information is shared on social media sites, it is very difficult to counter and to get the actual situation accepted. The climate in which development takes place these days is for the public to believe that the worst is going to happen.

If the pre-application stage for large-scale infrastructure is believed to be too lengthy with too many parts to it, it seems to me that the best way forward would be to retain the principle of pre-application but to reform the process so that it was not so time-consuming and did not delay the construction processes. That is why the pre-application process is absolutely vital. Removing the duty will simply make the process more challenging for the developer and resentment and frustration will grow, both against the development and at the failure of the democratic process. Living in a democracy involves making time for debate and challenge; it is the price we on these Benches are willing to pay. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering degrouped some of her amendments. Because I signed some of them, there is a risk that I might end up duplicating my words in the next debate, but that is not my intention.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask the Minister to reply. I want to understand why the Government have replaced the pre-application consultation involving two directly affected categories of person, the occupier and the landowner, with guidance from which they would be excluded. Perhaps she could give us a bit more understanding of what the guidance will cover and why the Government felt it necessary to remove the consultation on pre-application of this category. I put it to her that there are essential and good reasons to consult the owners and occupiers of the land at the earliest possible stage. It may be the case that if the Government were to reinstate it, they would get a speedier agreement, which is what they seek. Owners and occupiers of the land have the closest possible interest in any development on their land. I can see no good democratic reason why they would be excluded from the earliest possible consultation at the essential pre-application stage concerning any development proposal on their land. Obviously, I include tenants with equal rights to owners and occupiers as essential farmers of the land. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to several of my noble friend’s amendments and I agree pretty much with every word she just said. I made my main points in the previous group.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister to consider this important change, which would help resolve concerns from noble Lords that the Bill will not deliver for infrastructure, and help enable not only the 2030 target but broader economic competitiveness and growth.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak particularly to my Amendment 46A, which is a good example of trying to knit the Bill together. We are trying to speed up aspects of planning decisions on infrastructure, yet also—I will not go heavily into Part 3—create environmental improvement.

This is quite a simple, straightforward amendment. I am very grateful for the counsel of Alexa Culver, with whom I have been engaging through LinkedIn. She is counsel at RSK and is doing a very good job of seeing how this is coming together. In essence, in the Bill as it stands, Natural England is tasked with creating this environmental delivery plan—I am concerned about certain aspects of Part 3—which will hopefully, to paraphrase, improve the environment. That document will be created and approved by the Secretary of State for Defra to make sure that we see improvements.

Therefore, for me it is exceptionally logical that whenever a Secretary of State in another department makes a decision on NSIPs and considers where the national policy statement has effect, they should also, in effect, consider the environmental delivery plan as it is. Under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State already has to consider national policy statements, marine policy documents if relevant, other aspects regarding local impacts and

“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are … important”.

That is absolutely critical. In all the changes, particularly in Part 3, the Government are saying that they can have the best of both by doing this. My amendment would make certain that they have to consider it and that it will actually get delivered. That is why I have tabled it at this stage of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his Amendment 46. On Amendment 46A, I would be very surprised if the Secretary of State did not take account of EDPs. From the provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, read out, the Secretary of State clearly has the power to do so.

On Amendment 46, we partly return to the role of regulators. There is a perverse output of regulators making it difficult to achieve net-zero targets, which I find very difficult. Some regulators find it difficult to go wider than the very narrow remit that they seem to work under. One of the questions to the Government is: do they really think it will make a difference? It is easy to make fun of bats or acoustic fish deterrents, but it is fair to ask whether, as a result of this legislation, we will see an end to the ludicrous behaviour of regulators, which has cost so much money, delayed projects by so much time and, as we know, achieved absolutely zilch for conservation or nature preservation. Ultimately, that is the test.

It seems that the regulators do not come under enough challenge on their performance. Somehow, we need to put some mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that the regulators come under the microscope much more on how they behave and that they are held accountable. That is why the amendment is very well judged.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Coffey]

46A: Clause 11, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 104(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) at end insert—“(ba) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the Secretary of State must take into account any EDP applying to the land which will be developed.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am not moving Amendment 46A, although I would like to speak to the Minister about this, because I am not overly satisfied and may seek to bring the amendment back on Report.

Amendment 46A not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I do not have a huge amount to add to the comprehensive introduction provided by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but I want to pick up on a few things related to the nuclear industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned the eight years from application to consent for Sizewell C. The Government, of course, have big ambitions for the nuclear rollout. Tomorrow I am chairing a board meeting of Midlands Nuclear—a partnership organisation for nuclear across the Midlands region. We are looking at where we can site nuclear power stations within the Midlands, and at small modular reactors and advanced reactors, all in coherence with the Government’s plans through EN-7—the new national policy statement for a more flexible siting approach for nuclear.

There are big ambitions for nuclear and for the industry, but, given the experience we have had with Hinkley, Sizewell and other large infrastructure, we have to be radical. We have to think of new ideas that are going to help speed infrastructure through the system. That is why the Government should take these suggestions from the noble Lord, Hunt of Kings Heath, very seriously. I note that a lot of the principles in Amendment 52—the noble Lord mentioned the tried and tested process within that—and Amendment 65 are similar to those in a law that is being rolled out in Canada. The Government should consider these amendments very seriously.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was astonished when I saw Amendment 52, but I will start briefly with Amendment 47. As my noble friend Lord Banner pointed out, this is just about being fair to people. As has been mentioned, effectively not allowing people to have hearings and an opportunity to speak when their livelihoods, homes or whatever it is are being ripped away is difficult.