Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, responding to the noble Lord opposite, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 4.31 of the Companion. Committee stage is a conversation; it is a free for all. Members may speak when they want and as often as they want. The point is to get to the root of the issues that we are discussing. We are here to do a job, not to stick to a timetable. If that takes us again past midnight, that is what we are here for. The point is to get through it, so that we conclude the arguments and can be much briefer and more formal on Report. This phrase “before the Minister sits down” is not a Committee phrase. We have the right to speak at any time. We must hold to that right, because that is the core of us doing our job well in this place.

The amendment proposes that we take the question of environmental delivery plans at a gentler pace, and that we start by applying them in circumstances where the concept obviously works. Things that operate on a large scale, nutrient neutrality, water problems and other such issues are landscape-scale problems that need landscape-scale solutions. However, as we heard on the last day of debate, matters such as species are much more difficult to deal with.

We have a huge amount of uncertainty at the moment. From talking to the developer community and listening to them, I know that they see the Bill as paralysing development for the next five years. The Bill is meant to accelerate development, but as we have it at the moment it does the exact opposite. It creates so much uncertainty on how Part 3 will work, what it will feel like and how it will develop. Natural England has huge powers, and there are lots of big sums of money going this way and the other, but no one knows how it will happen. No one really understands how Natural England has the capacity to manage something of this scale—or even of this type—and what sets of behaviours to expect from it. We are setting ourselves up for five years of stasis, five years of not getting anywhere, because it will take that long for the system to settle in.

There is a better way to do this: to pace things, pilot things and do the easy bits first, and to make an early announcement of where the pilot EDPs will be, so that people can get their heads around it, and have large and open discussions about this. The provision that we are looking at is supposed to last a long time. There is no point in this being done in a constricted and partisan way—it will just break open the next time we have a change in Government. Everybody who wants to be involved in this is being asked to commit over long timescales. We politicians must adjust ourselves to that; we must run this in a way that allows people to have confidence in the politics over a long time.

The Government’s behaviour on biodiversity net gain is not a good sign of where they are in this space. I urge them to have wide discussions and involve people who are of obvious quality and depth, and who are likely to be there and involved in the discussion in years to come. In particular, I urge them to involve people from opposition parties; it should not be the Conservatives’ choice of who to involve but the Government’s, rather like how my noble friend Lord Gove appointed the current chair of Natural England. They are not a natural Conservative supporter but someone who, because they were not a natural Conservative supporter, has lasted and commanded the respect of this Government. We want something that will run through—long-term thinking, long-term commitments and long-term relationships to build confidence. Amendment 242B says, “Let’s take it that way. Let’s take it slowly and carefully, let’s take people with us, rather than have some big and uncontrolled explosion.” I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 271 and 272. In response to the Minister, one way of quickening these procedures, and getting rid of the risk of a Member speaking for a long time while withdrawing an amendment, is actually for the Government to accept a few of the amendments. Altogether, I think we have probably tabled some 400 amendments, many of which seem to be common sense. However, we seem to have had ministerial resistance to absolutely everything so far, which I do not think is a particularly good sign. However, I shall give the Government a chance because my amendments should obviously be accepted.

Even more seriously, Clause 58(2) starts quite promisingly. It says:

“In preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to”,


and then lists

“the development plan for the development area … the current environmental improvement plan … any Environment Act strategies”—

which, I am pleased to say, would include local nature recovery strategies. However, at the end of the subsection, it says

“so far as Natural England considers them to be relevant”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the chances of the Government agreeing to an amendment are very slim. I remember being in opposition in the other place in Committee on the Bill setting up the Greater London Authority, and we discovered that there was a comma missing. We moved an amendment to that effect, which was rejected by the Government and brought back on Report—so we get the mentality of these things.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am sorry, I will not take up the time of the House, but there is a precedent in this House, in that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, during the passage of the climate change Act in 2006, at one point threw his papers away and said not quite “Damn it”, but that he was going to agree to this one, despite what the department says, and it went through. However, I have never had another instance of that happening.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

The amendments I have put down are all about making sure we had scientific evidence and consultation. I am a bear of little brain—