Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is customary on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that in the unlikely event—these are my parentheses—of a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morris of Yardley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Public Services Committee Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts (2nd Report, HL Paper 87).
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this debate on the Public Services Committee’s report, Lost in Translation? Interpreting Services in the Courts. Before doing so, I congratulate the new Minister on her appointment. I understand that this is the first of her parliamentary appearances; we are pleased about that. We have set a bit of a habit here because, when Minister Sackman came to speak to our committee, she had been in her post for two weeks, so we had exactly the same situation. The only good news from that Minister’s point of view, I suppose, is that she is still there, which stands us in good stead in terms of the length of service of the Minister here. We welcome the Minister to her post and we hope that she will take the opportunity to concentrate and focus on this, her first report, to see whether we can make a real difference.
I begin by thanking our committee team: Dan Hepworth; Tom Burke; Claire Coast-Smith; Clayton Gurney; Gemma Swan, who was our POST student and was very good; and Lara Orija. I also thank the officials at the MoJ and the Courts Service, who were unstintingly helpful and timely; the committee cannot say that about every government department, so we are very grateful. Although we have not always agreed with them, we have appreciated the working partnership that they have had with our committee clerk and their team.
This is an important part of the justice system, but it is not a large part. There will be some courts that do not make much use of translators, and there will be some for whom it is an everyday occurrence. Together, there are 17,000 bookings a month in more than 150 possible languages, so, for the people whose lives and cases are affected by this issue, it is absolutely crucial and 100% important. If it goes wrong, it not only has an impact on the people concerned, such as the accused and defendants, but leads to an unravelling in the way in which the courts work in terms of delayed cases and having to hear cases again.
The committee does not underestimate the difficulty of this service. If we had been talking about this 10, 15 or 20 years ago, the languages that were used most would have been different from what they are now. This is a changing game and I appreciate that that must make it difficult to make sure that the right people with the right skills are in the right place at the right time. The way in which the judicial system works means that 27% of the bookings are made only 24 hours before a case is heard, with 9% made only three hours before. That is difficult. To make that work efficiently and effectively, you need to be on top of the administration and you need to have a good cadre of people to call on.
I pay tribute to the translators. They are a hugely committed and talented group of people. The evidence that they gave us, particularly in the round tables we held with them, was important; indeed, it was instrumental in our findings. Although members of the committee who will speak today and the report have their criticisms, they are not of the translators but of the system. That is an important point to make.
The strange thing about this inquiry was that, as one often finds, it was like talking to groups of people who are describing totally different things. You think, “Unless we can get to the point where they’re describing the same thing, no progress will be made”. What we got here, in terms of differences of opinion, was the Minister saying, “It’s not perfect but it’s doing a solid job. There’s a low number of complaints and a high fulfilment rate”. We also had thebigword—the contractor that runs the service—saying that things were done
“consistently within the minimum service rates”
when describing how it works. However, let us look at the lawyers—the other bit of the judicial system—who work on that. The Bar Council said:
“Although there are committed and talented interpreters … the overall standard is not acceptable and not delivering justice”.
The Magistrates’ Association noted
“the frequent failure to book interpreters, leading to delays”.
If we then talk to the translators, they describe a set of circumstances that are inappropriate for any group of workers, let alone for people with such a key role in one of our most important public services. I imagine that some members of the Select Committee, and others speaking here today, will talk about the conditions for interpreters, because that underpins a lot of what is going wrong in the service.
I do not want to go over the facts and figures. Instead, I will give two examples from the interpreters who gave evidence, which have stayed in my mind and which sum up what happens. The first was about not being valued, which came from an interpreter in response in an unrelated question; we did not ask a question about that. I did not realise that if an interpreter goes to the court to do their job, they queue with the public and wait until the doors to the public are open before they get into the court. Everyone else connected with the case—the judges, barristers, magistrates and court clerks—goes in through the staff entrance. That is utterly appalling and sums up what is wrong with the culture. Just think what message that gives about their importance and value. Imagine how that hampers their job: if they are at the end of the queue, the time that they might have had—for example, to talk to the barrister, to meet their client or to check some legal nicety—is absolutely gone.
I looked at the Minister’s MoJ staff who are present for this debate today. There are four of them; I could not spot the fourth, but at least two have day passes. They have not been right the way through the security system. They do not have passes like the rest of their staff—only the one at the end has a full pass; the others have day passes. If the MoJ can provide day passes for their staff to support them in this Committee, why can they not arrange for the courts to organise day passes for interpreters to do their job effectively with the people with whom they work?
The second example was about pay. It was the story of one man who had to travel a long way to do his job; I think it was in Wales. He had a language that was not in frequent use. Because of the timing of the case, he booked trains to go and to come back, and they had to be at peak times; I think he was going from London to Cardiff. The night before, the case was cancelled. He got one hour’s pay, but he did not get the travel cost, and so the one hour’s pay did not cover the cost of his train fare. Why would he do it again? Why would he respond to any request to do that again?
Those examples are anecdotal, but they are evidence. Those issues are repeated time and time again. There are specific problems with pay and travel, but the overall issues always come down to the system’s view of the role that these people play in our court system—and that is what has to change.
We therefore have a difference of view. We have people in the same system who are meant to be jointly delivering the same service, but who describe that service in very different ways. It is difficult to work out why that is the case. One reason is that the data and the quality system do not provide all the accurate information that is needed. If you look at the figures, you could say that they are not bad; you could say that there has been an improvement in the last quarter or that there has been a complaint in only 1% of cases. However, if you look deeper at the figures, you will see that many statistics do not get reported.
There are also inconsistencies and contradictions in that data; I will mention just two. First, we never got an answer to the question as to why the unfulfilled requests are higher than the number of ineffective trials. If they did not get an interpreter, how did the case go ahead? Who did they use to do the interpretation? Secondly, we never got an answer to the question as to why off-contract bookings are higher than the number of unfulfilled requests. You are not meant to go to an off-contract booking unless you cannot fill the role with someone from the primary contractor, so how did that also go wrong?
On the quality control system and 1% level of complaints, quite honestly the Bar Council and magistrates were bewildered that they should ever finish a case at lunchtime, rush off to the next case in the afternoon and have time to make a complaint that the interpreter had not turned up in between. That data is not capturing the reality of what is happening in the interpretation service. We cannot rely on those figures and it is no good quoting them back and saying that all is well in the world of courts and interpreters. The Government have to ask themselves the difficult questions.
We welcome some of the Government’s responses, including more coherent sets of data, refreshed guidance, improved welfare provision and strengthening safeguarding proposals. We welcome all those. There is a bit of me that thinks that that was the easy bit and a lot of me that thinks that the difficult bits were not responded to as positively as that. We welcome their commitment to Ann Carlisle’s report on qualifications, but it means that 80% of cases will need level 6 qualifications and 20% will need level 3. I have heard nothing yet to reassure me that the system, thebigword and the contractors will have anything place in as quick a time as is necessary.
I turn now to the contract, because it is on the contract that all rests. The reason we did not get answers on pay, conditions and travel expenses is that every answer from the department is, “It’s in the contract. It’s up to the contractor. It’s up to whoever wins the contract”. We have to remember that, prior to 2012, it was delivered centrally as a national agreement. This contracting and outsourcing has not had an easy start. It did not go well in 2012—the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Commission have made that point—and the present contract sits in that context. It had to be very good to wipe from people’s minds that memory of a very bad start.
I will talk a bit about the problems with contracting out and why this is one of the sources of what is going wrong. I will give one example, which ties in with the other things that we have talked about. The contract was let to this provider in 2016. There has been no pay increase for interpreters since then—not one pay increase from 2016 until now. I do not know another group of workers for whom that is the case. We are not against outsourcing, or the market, but we are against outsourcing done badly. That is an important point that the committee was keen to make. The contract allows the MoJ and the courts to distance themselves from the reality of what is happening on the ground.
In their responses, the Government said that suppliers are best placed to set rules, suppliers are the experts and suppliers have gone in for dynamic pricing. This is a public service. You can outsource and you can let the market guide you, but if you run a public service, you cannot abdicate your responsibility for making sure that it is universally good and delivering an excellent level of provision for every single person whose life it protects. That is why they cannot answer on pay and travel costs. We have had no response at all other than, “It is going to be left to the market, and we trust the provider”.
I just gently say to the Minister that I hope that, before that contract is signed, she has at least two assurances. An inflation increase has been guaranteed in the contract year on year but, despite our best efforts, we have no assurance that that increase will be paid to the translators as a salary increase. Be absolutely sure, before it is signed, that that is an agreement to pay a salary increase and not just to pay the successful contractor more.
I also want to know what the percentage of profit is on the contract compared to the amount going to running the service. I worry about dynamic pricing, which was a bit of a strange phrase until it started being used for pop concerts. My understanding of dynamic pricing is that somebody always loses. That is the nature of it. I want to know who the losers are in the dynamic pricing that the ministry is quite happy to use here.
This is important. The contract will go until 2030. Whatever is decided cannot be changed between now and the end of this decade. I very much hope that the Minister, given her background, what I know of her and that this is her first debate, will want to look at this contract again. I know that it is at the negotiation stage, but please do not sign it off as a job already done. Please seize it as an opportunity of perhaps doing something better. I am delighted to be able to move the Motion on this report and look forward to people’s contributions.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for an excellent summary of our report and the flaws that we found in the court interpretation system. I also welcome the Minister to her position. I am looking forward to hearing what she has to say. It is a pity that at her first official outing she will defend some of the things that we found indefensible but, no doubt, she will make an excellent job of it.
The overwhelming conclusion that we all reached is summed up in paragraph 41 of our report:
“There is a clear disconnect between what the government hopes is happening, what the companies contracted to deliver the services believe is happening, and what frontline interpreters and legal professionals report is happening with interpreting services in the courts”.
That message came through time and time again. We had evidence that interpreters and translators can lose significant amounts of money, with limited options to find alternative work when cases are delayed or cancelled. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, described some of those. Current provisions such as the two-hour guaranteed payment and cancellation payments are not adequate, especially when interpreters are booked for extended periods of time.
However, the MoJ view is that the two-hour minimum booking provides a balance between attracting and supporting interpreters to take bookings while maintaining value for money for the MoJ. Of course, it certainly provides value for the MoJ but at the expense of interpreters, who can lose a whole day’s pay.
We were critical of data collection, which we felt did not present a full picture of the problems of interpretation in the courts and could lead or had led to miscarriages of justice. The MoJ view was that there were no known instances of miscarriages of justice because of flaws in interpretation. But if you have inadequate data to begin with, how on earth can you tell? Also, if the interpreter is misinterpreting, who is to know? The MoJ view is that it is up to the judge and lawyers to complain about interpretation faults. But the dynamics of the court system is that unless the interpreter is, say, rolling around stone drunk or incapable, no one will check that the interpreted words are exactly right.
The MoJ says that it is up to the courts to manage all aspects of the case. That leads to the innate judicial arrogance that we see in the treatment of interpreters, who are regarded as of little consequence in the courts. For example, on the treatment of the interpreter workforce, we said that in some cases interpreters are not treated as professionals working within the court and are not considered key members in the running of the court. Interpreters are treated like members of the public and are not kept up to date on court logistics. Furthermore, we said that interpreters are not given appropriate information about potentially long, complex or technical court cases that may require extra preparation and resources by the interpreter ahead of time.
We said in our report that the Government should provide guidance to ensure that interpreters’ key role in court proceedings is recognised and that His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service provides information about cases ahead of time in order to improve interpreters’ well-being and ensure that they can make necessary preparations. Interpreters told us that the police, in the main, treated them far better than the lawyers in the courts. In particular, the police would brief interpreters in advance that there might be, say, technical forensic terms to be translated so that they could swot up beforehand—no such treatment in the courts.
I accept that in a court where no interpretation is required, the most important people in the room are the judge and the lawyers questioning the accused and the witnesses. But where an interpreter is used, that interpreter becomes by far the most important person in the court. It is the interpreter who will translate the lawyers’ questions for the witness or the accused and then translate back the answers. In those cases, no one is more important than the interpreters and they should be given the respect and facilities that they need, like any of the lawyers, and not treated like a tea lady. Saying that it is up to the judge to manage the court is not good enough. Interpreters must be given advance warning of the broad nature of the case, whether it is a violent crime with technical medical forensic terms, or financial crime with its own vocabulary, or any other specialist case.
We said that the Government should introduce detailed audio equipment, including sound booths for interpreters, as part of court refurbishments, and provide appropriate portable equipment for unrefurbished courts. I accept that the main obstacle here is cost and that many courts would need some fairly extensive investment in audio technology. But the price of that kit is falling all the time and the quality is increasing exponentially.
Now the Ministry of Justice is in favour of it, but I wonder whether it is facing lawyer pushback and not going flat-out on this technology. I say that because the MoJ response, in paragraph 18.5, was:
“We will review the use of this equipment and promote its use where appropriate, within a 6-month period”.
That rather contradicts its comments in the preceding paragraph that
“the majority of courts and tribunals have the tools to support remote attendance should that be appropriate, and we are improving the equipment to enable this more widely”.
Then there is the statement that
“the decision on whether remote interpreting can be utilised in a hearing remains for the judiciary”.
Why? On what basis does a judge make a decision not to use remote interpreting facilities? Is it based on his technical analysis of the quality of the recordings or the locations, or on his personal preference that he does not like it and wants to see the bodies in court?
I suggest that this is not a decision for a judge. The Ministry of Justice must do a technical assessment of courts and pronounce which ones have good enough audio equipment, and also at the interpreter ends, for remote to be used at all times in that courtroom. It should be a technical assessment for the MoJ to make, not a judge.
In conclusion, the impressions I got from the MoJ were twofold: first, a fear of challenging old-fashioned judicial and lawyer behaviour that is causing inefficiencies. We have not finished taking evidence or written our report yet, but we are doing an inquiry at the moment and courts are able to see and hear top-quality digital audio and video recordings of police interviews. But the lawyers and the CPS insist on having them transcribed and then act them out in court. The technology is a million times better than in 1980, but the courts are still stuck in their Rumpole of the Bailey time warp.
The other impression I get is that the MoJ thought that it was doing everything rather well and right: that it knew what it was doing and there were no real problems with interpretation, or the concerns raised by interpreters. As we say in our report, and I conclude with my opening remarks, this investigation revealed a disconnect between what the MoJ thought it was buying, what the providers thought they were supplying and what the interpreters were having to do on the ground. That disconnect still prevails, I am afraid.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who identified so many of the problems in the courts system that impact on the interpreting service. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for chairing our inquiry so effectively and for having explained clearly the conclusions we reached as a committee. I thank too those who gave evidence to us and the committee team who did the research and drafted our report so comprehensively.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who said to the Minister at the end of her speech that the Minister should not sign off the new contract as a job already done, on the grounds that it is not. I concur with that.
I thought when we started our work that we would learn of cases of miscarriage of justice, or potential miscarriages of justice, caused by poor interpretation. But it did not turn out like that, because the evidence is not collected through effective quality-assurance systems to tell us the answer. Those providing the service think it runs well and those delivering the service—the interpreters doing the work—generally speaking do not.
From the interpreters, we heard too many examples of poor treatment. Some travelled long distances to find trials cancelled without fair remuneration for their time and travel costs. There were many complaints of poor pay rates and inadequate increases for inflation over the period of the outsourced contract. It is no surprise that interpreting the courts is not seen as a desirable career path for many interpreters to develop.
When the Government outsourced the contract 10 years ago, it undoubtedly reduced costs but—I concluded, as we listened to the evidence—this was to the disbenefit of interpreters and led to poorer service delivery overall. For example, in the first nine months of 2024, there were over 600 trial postponements because of a lack of interpreter support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, explained, concerns were expressed to us by the Bar Council and the Law Society, which told us that the overall quality and number of interpreters were insufficient. This meant that there could be a risk to public trust in the justice system. The Bar Council also told us that there had been a decline in the quality of the service in recent years.
For that reason, those pressing for a mandatory qualification for interpreters at higher levels than presently apply must be right. It must also be right for pay rates for interpreters to increase in line with the level of qualification held. High-quality interpreters should not have to look for off-contract court interpretation jobs, which may offer twice as much as they might receive for a normal contract job. I do not think that GCSE level 3 is sufficient for a court interpreter and I think that the Government need to agree minimum pay rates for interpreters to ensure that what they receive is fair and reasonable.
Court interpreters should also be treated as professionals. We have heard quite a bit about that already from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. However, I too was concerned to hear that working in police stations was seen as more welcoming, with a room to wait in and a proper welcome. In the courts, they are being treated as a member of the general public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who said that this was just not acceptable.
I cannot recall any witness to our inquiry saying that the system worked well. The recent increase to the two-hour minimum payment for an interpreter, however long or short the case, is welcome, but the Government have an obligation to address poor pay rates generally and to drive up quality. They need to deliver stronger quality assurance, better statistics and better pay rates to give us confidence in the courts’ interpreting services.
At the very end of her introductory speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked the Minister whether something might be said, either in reply or perhaps later, on the profit levels deriving from the contract and the role of dynamic pricing. When we took evidence, I got the impression, and still have the impression, that too much is hidden behind the scenes. It is not public information and I believe that the public have an entitlement to know it.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking the committee en bloc for the important work that it has done in looking at this subject which, as has already been observed, is something of a Cinderella in the justice system. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for her overview and introduction to the work of the committee.
It is a particular pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in her place on her first outing as Minister. She brings enormously wide experience of the criminal law, in particular from sitting in the busiest criminal court in London until, I think, the day before she was nominated for a peerage. I suspect that the noble Baroness has seen more interpreters in action in recent years than the rest of us put together. It is some years since I was in the position of seeing interpreters at first instance.
All who have sat in courts and tribunals will have a mixed experience of interpreters. Many are excellent, but some are less so. But now is not the time for war stories, which any judge or practitioner would be happy to share in slower times.
Interpreters are needed in many criminal cases, even for participants who understand and can speak in conversational English. It is vital for anyone involved in legal proceedings, whether they be criminal, family, civil or tribunals, to understand what is going on and, if they are giving evidence, for the court or tribunal to understand what they are saying. There is also a need for participants to be able to communicate with their lawyers if they do not speak English. Some family cases and, more widely, when necessary, other civil and tribunal cases are provided with interpreters at public expense, as are criminal cases, but one should not overlook the fact that very large volumes of interpretation services are secured privately by litigants’ solicitors on their behalf.
I of course welcome any steps taken to improve across the board the standards of interpretation in our courts. As has been observed, the range of languages that require interpretation grows and changes on a monthly and yearly basis. I also welcome the efforts suggested by the committee to improve the standing and treatment of interpreters. Like the committee, I am confident that the contractual provisions need careful attention.
I wish to focus for a minute or two on technology and interpretation. In June 2018, I gave a lecture to the British and Irish Legal Information Institute on technology and the courts. I mention it not to encourage any noble Lord to trouble to find it and read it, but in a throwaway couple of lines I suggested that, with the use of technology, within a very few years high-quality simultaneous translation would be available: both translation which produces a text and translation that would be vocalised by technology. I added that, at the time, 2018, we were in the technological equivalent of the steam age—others had described it as the stone age—and that things would improve. I soon learned of the proliferation of bodies representing the interests of interpreters. All of them got in touch very quickly to tell me how wrong I was and, had I been on any of their Christmas card lists, I fear I would have been struck off.
Now we are seven years on and I confess my mild disappointment at the relatively small amount of space given to this issue by the committee and again, if I may say so, the rather dismissive response from the Government on this aspect. The reality is that those who represent interpreters are likely to be lukewarm about technology being used for translation and interpretation and, as has already been alluded to, the legal profession is not renowned for embracing change. However, technology really has moved on. Voice recognition software is now pretty reliable. It is very different from the early days when I used it 10 or more years ago, trying to dictate judgments. I found that it took longer to correct them than it would have taken me to type them in the first instance.
Translation software is also now very reliable. Of course, it is not available for all languages—one has to recognise that—but it is available for many, and English is the ubiquitous language into which many other languages have to be translated across the world. Publicly available software is always available now to vocalise translatable text. Many courts around the world are using this technology now for translation and interpretation purposes, and others are thinking of introducing it imminently. I declare an interest as Chief Justice of the Astana International Financial Court.
So its day has come, or very soon will come. Computing power is doubling every six months at the moment. I urge the Government to look closely at what is going on around the world and make plans urgently to keep up. When they do, I suggest, in the light of bitter experience of the court reform programme, that they buy products off the shelf and do not seek to build them from scratch or indulge in overengineering. I see the Minister smiling because she has seen this at the coalface. If there is time, I would be grateful to have an indication of what is being planned by the Government to use technology for translation and interpretation.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords can remember their first time in the Chamber or in the other place. My own memory is that it was architecturally imposing, with unfamiliar rituals; it left me with a sense of awe and, frankly, a bit of anxiety on that first day.
This led me to think of an accused person or a defendant going into a courtroom for the first time and experiencing some of the same feelings, with impressive buildings and people in strange costumes—and, of course, anxiety. For them, however, it is different. For us, a slip might have been slightly embarrassing, but they do not know what is going on because they cannot speak English. Therefore, to make that work, we must ensure that the evidence is translated properly.
I think it was Mr Jaggers, Dickens’ favourite lawyer, who said it was not about how it looks but about the evidence. How we get that evidence there is clear—the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, gave us the numbers and statistics—but the point I want to make is that we should give some recognition to the fact that it is complicated. They do a good job. I do not think that we should diss these people. There is a problem of culture—which I will come to—but, under the skilful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and with the support of both our clerk, Dan, and our researcher, Tom, the committee undertook to try to understand what was going on, not so much to mark the homework of the Courts Service but to take a forward-looking view: what things could we draw attention to that would actually change things, rather than going back over old ground?
In some ways, you could say that it was partly encouraging. People are making it work, to some degree. It is not as good as it could be but, from a legal point of view, it is a fact that the Court of Appeal has not overturned a judgment in the past 20 years because of mistranslation. So, despite the fact that the data may not be good or accurate, and the complaints system is there, at the moment, we have not had a major collapse on that issue. So we found some encouraging things, and we recognised how difficult it was.
Then we turned to the problems. I suppose you could describe the major problem as cultural. There is a major disconnect between what we heard from various parties and what the Courts Service told us. I would not say that it was smug, but it did not seem to recognise the need for change. Perhaps that is a contractual question: this famous contract and whether they are locked into it. The processes and the technology seem, on the whole, to be stuck in stasis somewhere.
The big issues on which we really focused were quality and data. How can you improve something if you do not have measurement? How do you relate that to quality? How does it work—and, from that, complaints, et cetera? The two big issues that really stuck out were the pay and conditions of interpreters and the question of what we are going to do about technology. The Minister comes to this anew—she will soon be very familiar with the contract—but, on pay and conditions, I must say that I was reminded of 19th-century mill owners in their approach to this. It was, “Get is as cheap as you can. Pay piecework, then lay them off if there’s nothing to do”. I am not sure that is a sustainable basis for building this incredibly important workforce. We were told by many witnesses that there was going to be a shortage.
Looking forward, pay and conditions need reforming now, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we keep getting pushed back. We do not know what those terms and conditions will be. They are wrapped up in the secrecy of the contract and confidentiality. However, really and truly, there are two things here. First, we described pay as being “low and opaque”. Then there is the fact that the conditions, including cancellation of trials and non-payment for that, are unsustainable. There is competition out there, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. There is the police service and there are other people who employ them. So, if we are to have this service on a sustained basis, what we have to do is make sure that the terms and conditions are there.
Because the contract is being negotiated, all we can ask the Minister to do is to look at the contract to make sure that it is fair and modern and has some dynamic aspects. Looking at the existing contract, we were struck that it was sclerotic and juddery and that it did not have a mechanism for reform. All these contracts need something for continuous improvement.
Those factors—pay and conditions—have to be got right, but equally important is technology. The Lord, Lord Blencathra, discussed audio-visual technology. It seemed amazing to us that the court service really has no idea of exactly what is going on out there. It talked about the need for technology and about who was responsible. Clearly, there should be an inventory and a plan. Can the Minister look at this and tell us, at some point, what assessment has been made of the existing state of technology in the courts? Is there a road map to correct it, and can that be put in place? Is it the usual story that the Treasury will not agree to it, or is there some other managerial shortcoming? It would be nice to know.
More important is the question of AI. I admit that, in this case, I often feel a bit like the famous dog watching television: I can see it but I do not get it—and I do not know how the department will get it. We had a lot of evidence discussing the speed with which AI would come. Realistically, we have to know what is possible. I hope that, at some point, the Minister will be able to tell us, perhaps in writing, whether there is a road map for this in the department, particularly for the court service. How will it assess the right moment to do it? Will it buy technology from abroad and, if so, what assessment has been made of that? Frankly, we will have a crossover with a declining labour force in this area if we continue with cheap pay, so will technology arise as an answer to some of that? We should think very carefully about that.
The question for me is the issue of continuous improvement in the contract. Let us hope that it is in the contract, and that we do not have something frozen in time. To get that right, the department must take ownership. This made me think of Mr Jaggers; he had some good clients with Magwitch and Miss Havisham, but he obviously built a pretty good practice by getting on and delivering it. I hope that the Ministry of Justice can get its act together with this contract, drawing on and taking forward what we say, so that we get a much better and, above all, sustainable service in a changing market.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this report and begin by declaring my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages, and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, both of which submitted evidence to the committee’s inquiry. I am very glad to say that many of our concerns were shared by the committee and are reflected in its recommendations.
My overriding concerns are twofold: first, to ensure equal access to justice for everyone caught up in the criminal justice system, be they defendant, witness or victim; and, secondly, to secure a step change in the way that public service interpreters—PSIs—are acknowledged, treated, respected and rewarded. As we have heard, they are highly skilled and qualified professionals, yet their work is currently valued on a par with unskilled jobs. Their pay starts at £20 an hour, rising to a magnificent £26 an hour for complex cases, yet they are working alongside solicitors, whose lowest hourly rate recommended by government guidelines is £196.
Progress on both my overriding concerns is achievable, if the Government agree not only to accept but to act on the committee’s recommendations and within the timeframe specified; I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance on that. Timing, indeed urgency, is of the essence, because the two issues—of equal access to justice and the status of PSIs—are of course inextricably linked. We are seeing disheartened, disillusioned, exhausted qualified interpreters reluctantly leaving the public sector every month, because they cannot afford to live within the terms and conditions on offer. This results in an ever-increasing risk of individuals in courts and tribunals having their access to justice delayed, denied or diminished.
The need for a clear commitment from government on the timeline for a plan, with timebound milestones for ensuring a pipeline of PSIs qualified at level 6, is critical, and the committee has requested progress updates every six months. Can the Minister undertake to provide these? Similarly, there is an immediate need for better and fuller data collection to ensure that we have a more complete picture of the effectiveness or otherwise of court interpreting services and the quality-assurance regime.
We have seen a lot of improvements since 1985, when Mrs Begum won her appeal against her murder conviction after it was revealed that, in her original trial, the so-called interpreter had not understood the difference between manslaughter and murder. Unless the pipeline of level 6 interpreters is increased, we may risk going backwards, not forwards.
Will the Minister also agree that the MoJ should insist on service providers increasing rates of pay, including for travel time and expenses, and that minimum pay should be reviewed at least annually, as recommended? Can she also spell out what other measures the MoJ intends to take to improve the supply chain by enhancing support for training, public respect for the professionalism of PSIs, and the provision of the appropriate technical and other equipment they need in court to do their job properly and safely? Will she commit to costing and including dedicated audio equipment, such as sound booths, in the court refurbishment programme?
Another committee recommendation is that remote interpreting should be introduced more widely for less complex cases. This is undoubtedly pragmatic and realistic as part of a long-term solution. I would caution only that in the evidence submitted by the APPG, we pointed out that during the Covid lockdowns there was a big shift towards remote court hearings and that a series of major reports, including one from the Magistrates’ Association, found significant concerns over the suitability of remote interpreting, with examples of misunderstandings, delays, poorly performing technology and missed verbal and non-verbal cues. We therefore recommended that research be carried out to show how such failings can be eliminated in future. Let us get this right, not rush it.
I caution also against the reliability and wholesale adoption of machine translation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, was quite right to say that it is not appropriate in all languages. The huge gaps currently in AI training data mean that machine translation works very well for standard Romance languages such as Spanish, Italian and French, and for German, but it is much less effective in languages with many dialects, such as Arabic, and has been shown to be virtually useless with tonal languages such as Mandarin and many other Asian and African languages. We need to look at what AI training data is being used before we commit entirely to machine translation.
Finally, it seems very strange to me, as it did to the committee, that different government departments and the police are all maintaining their own lists and registers of interpreters and translators when there is a national register in place which might simply need the Government and public services to get behind it. I hope the Minister might comment on this.
In conclusion, I offer my thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and her committee on such a rigorous and helpful inquiry and report, and I look forward to its speedy implementation, as well as to the reply from the Minister, who is of course most welcome in her new role.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the new Minister and wish her well in her—I hope—long career. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, pointed out, our committee has had some success with newly-appointed Ministers lasting a little longer than some colleagues.
The use of translation services in the public sector is of ongoing interest. It has been a pleasure to serve on the Public Services Committee under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and to be involved in the publication of this report. My focus today is going to be on the final set of recommendations on artificial intelligence, as already mentioned by one or two noble Lords.
Overall, a huge problem for the committee is the quality and availability of accurate data, not just in this report but in others we have made. Nevertheless, when it comes to our legal system, equal access to justice is a fundamental principle. That means providing high-quality interpretation and translation services to individuals when it is needed. The current level of services sometimes falls short and can present a risk to justice and potentially increase the burden on the court system.
As a result, the committee’s report Lost in Translation? is timely, especially as the Ministry of Justice is currently renegotiating a contract for language services. It has been a pleasure to work on the report with colleagues from across the House and the report contains many recommendations that I hope the Government will draw on. These include improving performance data, quality assurance and the workforce—all of which offer practical solutions that I hope the Government will look at seriously.
Today I want to focus on what I regard as potentially the most transformational issues that we considered: the role of new technology and, in particular, AI. There are numerous benefits that it can offer, from increasing the availability and quality of interpretation to reducing the cost to the taxpayer. Every part of the public sector is under pressure and will need to look for savings. AI could transform interpreting in our courts.
First, we have all adapted to remote working since the pandemic. It is clear that it is not suited to everyone or to every role, but there are many ways in which it can increase efficiency. It can hardly be described as cutting edge. The report notes that the use of remote interpreting can increase the amount of work that an interpreter can do and that it is particularly suited to procedural, administrative and technical hearings. Does the Minister agree? Will the Government consider how they can use any court refurbishment to ensure that more courts are suitable for remote interpreting, including having the appropriate audio-visual equipment, court layout changes and procedures? This would be a positive step and could draw on lessons from across government, in areas such as health.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is the role that AI may play in the future of translation in public services. I was initially disappointed to note that the MoJ seemed to be rejecting the potential value of AI, citing not only concerns on accuracy but also legal, policy, cultural and ethical implications. I agree that in such high-stake situations as substantive court proceedings, the need for accuracy and associated risks mean that we may not be quite there for full rollout. However, the use of AI for translation is already widely adopted in the business world. New technology should not be held to a higher standard than the status quo. Even the most skilled human interpreter cannot guarantee 100% accuracy. After all, human error cannot be totally removed from any system.
Best-in-class AI models are already way ahead of ad hoc use of basic digital translation tools that we heard in evidence are sometimes used as a last resort in the courts at the moment. The developments in AI that we have seen in the last few years mean that it would be a mistake to underestimate where the technology may be in the next 12 months, let alone five years. We heard from only one witness who believed that AI would move at pace. His evidence was quite punchy but nevertheless serious. It is clear that he was correct. I am disappointed that the department will not commit to a road map within six months. I strongly believe that AI will play a substantial role in the future of translation services. Most likely, this will be alongside and with oversight by skilled translation professionals. The Government should be planning on this basis.
Will the Minister commit to implementing the committee’s recommendation to publish within six months a funded road map for the introduction of AI tools for interpreting in public services? Will the Government commit to continuing to engage with industry to ensure that they are able to make the most of AI in this area? We need to ensure that momentum is sustained, and I welcome the work that the Government have done with major industry players—from the memorandum of understanding between the UK and OpenAI on AI opportunities, signed in July, and ongoing work to boost automation and efficiency across numerous departments with partners such as Microsoft and UiPath.
Finally, while I was initially disappointed by the MoJ’s attitude to the use of AI in the court system, I was heartened to hear that it is piloting the use of AI translation technology in certain prison settings. It is encouraging to see this taking place in modern and Victorian-era prisons. I hope that these pave the way for a wider rollout, in line with the Government’s stated ambition to pilot and scale AI services. To do this, will the Minister also take forward our recommendation to develop exemplar courts that can pilot the better deployment of remote interpretation and AI to support the delivery of interpretation and translation services?
In conclusion, I believe that we have an excellent example here of how AI is on the cusp of being suitable for deployment in public services. It can improve the work of our courts and, I believe, improve the status and work of translators. I hope that Ministers choose to seize that opportunity.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution, though it will take more than five minutes, on this report on interpretation and translation services in the courts. I welcome the new Minister and assure her that, of all the committees in this House, this is the one that provides excellent ideas, so that she can become a very successful Minister.
I confess that most of my interest during the inquiry was in how using technology, in particular AI, would resolve the challenge of the growing shortage of interpreters. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for her patience and excellent chairmanship of the inquiry and the committee’s members and staff, who had to put up with my often confusing proposals.
The final report explained the significant challenges facing court services and the growing concern and disillusionment of interpreters, who quite frankly were being treated with unacceptable levels of support, both financially and practically. To be fair, the Minister’s contribution to the government response to the report accepted the need to modify expense, time and transport allocations for translators and for them to have access to the courts as professional colleagues, not merely members of the public. However, the real answers will become clear only when the new contract is produced, as the MoJ and the leading supply organisations have indicated.
Here lies the biggest challenge so far in response to the committee’s report. Throughout our inquiry, virtually every major criticism was answered by the future publication of a new contract, yet to date neither Parliament, the courts nor interpreters have been given sight of the future arrangements. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we have seen some indications that the new contract will deliver improvements, particularly to strengthening qualifications—we agree on level 6—but I ask the Minister whether level 3 qualifications should be sufficient for community work and whether that would apply to asylum applications, which have been a huge issue recently. Sadly, the Government appear to have cast aside the need to create a minimum rate for interpreters and an increased rate when bookings are cancelled. However, as both the previous and present Governments have used the new contract as a saving grace, I hope that early indications are wrong. I will let others comment more sophisticatedly on that challenge.
Quite frankly, unless the new arrangement is seriously improved to not only retain existing staff but strongly appeal to new contenders, the Government have to recognise that our court system, and other legal systems that require interpreters, will face a critical future. Between 2011 and 2023, we have seen a 33% decline in registered interpreters, which has led to adjourned cases, potential growing miscarriage of justice and the use of poorly qualified individuals. This jeopardises the legal system. Yes, the decline is significantly due to the poor service offered to interpreters, but crucially also to the decline in students taking language courses who might become tomorrow’s interpreters. Between 2010 and 2021, the number of students studying level 3 languages at school fell by 50%, with 28 of the 1992 new universities no longer even offering language degrees as part of their courses.
I make the point because the demand for language interpreters is rising dramatically, with some 200 languages now required, and the increase in individuals needing interpreters is rising dramatically too. The committee, given the limited time for this short inquiry, did not include the obvious increasing challenge to our legal system from the growing numbers of immigrants—94% of whom arrived in the UK between 2018 and 2024 and who have subsequently applied for asylum. They therefore need access to legal support and assessment, which require interpreters. Given that most do not have English as their first language, support from interpreters will be required, putting added pressure for interpreters on Border Force, the Home Office, thebigword, Clear Voice and Migrant Help.
It is because of the enormous increased demand for interpreting services that I again urge the Minister to take more seriously the move to use new technologies, in particular AI, in support of that demand. I am delighted that half the speakers today had AI on their programmes; it was just one when I started. It is very sad that the Ministry of Justice constantly ignores the opportunity that AI can bring to its services, including in translation. I accept that there will be a significant number of court cases where the complexity of the legal challenge will not be overcome by the use of AI alone or by other present technologies. For example, I do not want the Minister to duplicate Donald Trump’s demand that all Medicaid contributions are initially assessed by AI before being granted. Please do not start down that way.
However, there is no doubt that AI and other technologies will have to be used, not simply to meet the huge shortage of interpreters in all public services but to improve those services dramatically by providing sophisticated analysis of arising data. To be fair, the Government have started using AI: the Home Office has used streaming algorithms to categorise visa applications and help manage the asylum system; it has used AI in combination with electronic monitoring, such as GPS ankle tags, for immigrant enforcement; and it has used AI systems to perform initial screenings of online e-visa applications, sending at-risk cases to an immigration officer rather than requiring support from interpreters.
This helps lessen the worry of many interpreters that AI will remove their work opportunities. That is simply not the case. AI in language and content interpretation will never be successful without the systematic involvement of high-level interpreters to monitor and control content.
Since the committee’s witness sessions, I have enjoyed reading the thoughts and proposals of Professor Susskind, one of the world’s leading AI enthusiasts, through his publications such as Tomorrow’s Lawyers. One I particularly recommend is Online Courts and the Future of Justice, where he quite rightly makes the point that the digital transformation of legal services is coming quickly—whether we like it or not. To be fair to the Minister, Sarah Sackman, she understood and agreed that this is the way forward but, without a very strong and positive agenda, it will emerge only when chaos demands. This was an excellent report and this is a wonderful opportunity for the Minister to respond to it and be noted for bringing AI to the centre of this work.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morris for providing this opportunity to consider the recommendations of the Public Services Committee report and the Government’s response. I add my welcome to my noble friend Lady Levitt, the Minister, for the baptism of her first debate in Grand Committee, which I am sure will be a precursor to many others.
I come new to this issue, but I saw that the committee’s emphasis was on the fundamental importance of equal and ready access to the law for all. It is clear that this debate is timely. The current contract for interpreting services in the courts expires next year, and the Ministry of Justice is now going through a reprocurement process. The opportunity to improve the service, should it need improvement, and solve problems is now.
I welcome the committee’s report. It makes many practical and forward-looking recommendations, drawn from a wide base of evidence given by court officials, interpreters, barristers, solicitors and the MoJ. To be able to access justice, interpreters and translators are, of course, sometimes necessary. No one should be disadvantaged in the legal process because of language barriers. Although interpreting is used in only a very small proportion of cases each year, the numbers are still considerable. I am sure I was not alone in being surprised that some 17,000 bookings for interpreters, across more than 150 languages, are dealt with by the MoJ through contracted private language providers each month.
The committee concluded that
“the current state of interpreting services in the courts is not working”
as “efficiently and effectively” as it should, representing
“a significant risk to the administration of justice”.
Given the number of cases involved, that conclusion is truly worrying. The committee’s report points to issues such as an inaccessible and poorly understood complaints process, which leads to the underreporting of problems. It also identifies the difficulties in recruiting and retaining highly qualified interpreters, due to widespread dissatisfaction with the remuneration, and terms and conditions. I will focus on those issues.
My noble friend Lady Morris has called this a significant crisis. The report cites evidence of interpreters being unable to make enough money to earn a living, and that low and opaque pay, a lack of control over earnings and remuneration for cancelled or delayed bookings, as well as a lack of respect, are all causes for leaving the profession. If it is the case, as my noble friend said, that T&Cs for interpreters have not changed since 2016, it is no wonder that experienced interpreters are leaving the contracted provider and offering services to the courts off plan when requests to the contracted provider cannot be met.
To counter this, the report recommends introducing minimum pay rates, annually reviewed, as well as improvements to cancellation pay, travel pay that actually reflects the cost of travel, and taking steps to ensure respectful treatment of professional interpreters.
Its recommendations also include having a more robust and transparent quality assurance program, and states that if the MoJ can seize
“the opportunity of the new contract it can improve the quality and transparency of the service, while preparing for the future both in terms of technology and the future workforce”.
Doing nothing, it says,
“risks reinforcing significant jeopardy to justice for the foreseeable future”.
That is strong wording and underlines just how important it is that we get the next steps right.
The response to the report from professional bodies was widely positive. The National Register of Public Services Interpreters welcomed the proposed new qualifications framework and strengthened QA. They all agreed that it is crucial that these steps are taken to ensure that poor quality interpretation does not lead to unfair trials or case delays. However, the NRPSI also said these developments will not stop interpreters “voting with their feet”. It and others point out that interpreters are choosing not to work with the MoJ’s outsourced contractor because of insufficient pay, lack of recognition, and unsupportive terms and conditions.
It is really disappointing to see the Government’s rejection of the report’s conclusions and recommendations on these points. It seems obvious that any progress on quality assurance will be hampered if new interpreters are not coming into the service due to a lack of improvement in pay and conditions. It will not serve justice if moves to improve the service falter due to a failure to address these key issues.
On qualifications, I gather that fewer than half of interpreters on the MoJ list hold a level 6 vocational qualification. Can my noble friend the Minister give us any indication of progress on plans to ensure that court interpreters meet level 6 qualification requirements? I am pleased that this is a government ambition but ask the Minister why this is not reflected in the qualification requirement expected to be included in the new contract.
The report recommends that the Government ensure that the new contract can be adjusted to require level 6 and introduces this requirement once an appropriate number of level 6 qualified interpreters are on the register. To that end, I note that interpreting services were to be included on the agenda for the June HMCTS strategic group—the forum in which the MoJ consults legal professional associations. Can the Minister relay any positive outcomes from this?
On remuneration, can the Minister indicate any further steps the MoJ could take to tackle the ongoing issue of off-contract bookings, driven by poor Ts and Cs and inadequate pay? Can she give us an assurance that the department will look again at the new contract having provisions for reviewing and increasing minimum pay on an annual basis? More dialogue on improving Ts and Cs is vital. As the NRPSI points out, if they do not address the reasons why interpreters continue to walk away from MoJ contract work, the new contracts and all the other hoped-for improvements in interpreting services in the courts will not serve.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, we have heard some powerful speeches from distinguished and knowledgeable speakers this evening. I am very conscious that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I come to this debate relatively new. However, I have one ace in my pack. I have been briefed in detail by an expert who has worked at the coalface of our criminal justice system for 25 years as an interpreter in French and Italian: indeed, she was a witness to the committee, and I am delighted to say that she is with us in the Room today.
Let us remind ourselves of the importance of what we are discussing. Ensuring the fairness of criminal proceedings has always been accepted as paramount, and interpretation services are a core part of that. Even the otherwise skeletal provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights state that fairness requires that everyone charged with a criminal offence should
“have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”.
That is hardly surprising, since what can be more important than a defendant being able to understand the case against him or her in a language they speak?
However, the committee’s report shows that the current provision of interpreting services in the courts has broken down and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice. It causes delays to cases, results in defendants being detained beyond what is necessary and, ultimately, risks miscarriages of justice. Yet, unlike the backlogs in our courts, with delays in rape trials, et cetera, the problems besetting our interpretation services have been largely invisible, with little or no publicity—that is, until the committee’s truly excellent report.
The crux of the problem is the way in which the current outsourcing of these services is totally failing to deliver for interpreters and, therefore, for defendants. There are inadequate remuneration arrangements for interpreters, especially when work is cancelled at short notice, and there are concerns around poor terms and conditions of service, quality assurance, performance data and transparency. Yet the Minister stated to the committee that, in 2024, only 0.7% of trials were delayed due to the lack of an interpreter, and that recent data showed an increase in service performance to 96%. How do we explain the clear disconnect between what the Government say is happening and what front-line interpreters and legal professionals report is actually happening?
As other noble Lords have said, the answer lies in the reliability of the data on which the MoJ relies for assessing the quality of interpreting services in the courts. As the committee has pointed out, the complaints system for stakeholders is the best measure of performance, yet the number of complaints does not equate to the number of unfulfilled requests for language expertise. In more than 5,000 cases last year, language requests were not fulfilled, with no explanation, yet complaints were not lodged. So I am afraid the data falls far short of the reality.
What is the solution? I think that, before signing a new contract, we should take a step back and look at what has happened in the past. The National Register of Public Service Interpreters—the NRPSI—has since 1994 maintained the independently managed and not-for-profit register of nearly 1,700 level 6-qualified interpreters with a minimum of 400 verified hours of professional experience. This register has long served as the gold standard for quality assurance in the sector, offering a robust framework, verifying qualifications, upholding professional conduct and ensuring interpreter accountability within the justice system.
The NRPSI therefore deserves to be listened to. It says that the root of the problem is systemic and relates, as we have heard, to the outsourcing of language services since 2012. Far from streamlining court operations, the system now relies heavily on off-contract bookings as a workaround for the deficiencies of the contracted model. It has led to a hopelessly fragmented and less transparent system. Now is a pivotal moment to put this right, before the current failures are perpetuated by a new outsourcing contract in 2026.
Let us consider what happened before 2012. It was a one-tier structure, where courts sourced interpreters directly from the NRPSI under a national agreement, with set fees, terms and conditions, and vetting, with an efficient system for complaints and disciplinary measures. Once a court official had dialled up the NRPSI list of, say, regulated and recommended Italian interpreters, they would then email those professionals to arrange a booking, contracting with each freelancer directly. It had the huge virtue of simplicity, with no middle people such as outsourcers causing a delay and taking a percentage for their trouble.
It was changed to an outsourcing model in 2012, principally to save costs. So I ask the Minister: does saving costs really outweigh the merits of efficiency, quality and accountability that existed before outsourcing? In the words of my expert:
“The current outsourcing contract with the Ministry of Justice has all but collapsed. The overriding failing in court interpreting which I have noticed is the last-minute search for off-contract interpreters. I continue to receive last-minute requests, not just from court officials but more commonly from a wide array of small to medium sized agencies. There’s absolutely no need for so many parties to be involved. I find it hard to believe that all this complexity in the back offices is any cheaper or more efficient than the pre-2012 arrangements”.
That is testimony from someone who really knows what is happening on the ground, day by day. There is no substitute for that. While I do not blame the Government for being misled by the data, now is the time to acknowledge the reality and respond accordingly.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, at the end of a debate of very high quality, I join with others in commending this report, and the work of the committee, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. I thank her for her opening: I hope I will not repeat any of it, but I was heartened to hear that, frankly, she did not mince her words. It is also my great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, with her wealth of experience, to her place on the Front Bench for her first debate. We look forward to many further discussions in the future.
I would not want to let this occasion pass without praising the work, over many years, of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, both in opposition and recently in government. He is not a lawyer by profession but he is bolstered by extensive practical experience of the justice system as a magistrate in criminal and family cases. His contributions to justice debates in the House have always been measured, courteous, knowledgeable and helpful.
The committee’s report was thorough and made a number of carefully considered and well-evidenced criticisms of court interpretation services, drawn from the wealth of experience of the witnesses it heard from: experienced court service users, as the noble Baroness, Lady Yardley said, the Bar Council, barristers, judges, the Law Society and others.
This debate has, frankly, reinforced an impression that many speakers have clearly had, that the Government’s published response has smacked of complacency. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, used the word “smug” and I believe he may have been justified. It is to be hoped that the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, will depart from that complacency, will be more thorough and will give better credence to some of the criticisms made by the committee.
In particular, the Government rejected a central conclusion of the committee, outlined in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the report. Paragraph 54 states that the current provision of interpreting services in the courts is
“not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice”.
The committee also recommended the collection of much more detailed and consistent data-gathering. It is plain that the failures of the services, and the distinction between the committee’s findings and the Government’s response, have largely stemmed from the failure of detailed data-gathering.
The Government’s response was:
“The MoJ is confident in the quality of its published data, which has been externally reviewed recently … and found to be of good quality”.
In response to paragraph 54, they state that
“the MoJ disagrees with the Committee’s conclusion that the provision of interpreting services in the courts is not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice”.
Importantly, they add:
“The quality metrics for the service are good (96% success rate in Q4 2024) and the number of trials that are delayed due to lack of interpreters is very low (0.7% of ineffective trials in 2024)”.
However, the reality—as shown by the evidence taken by the committee and from speakers today—is that the system’s weaknesses, in practice, simply do not show up either in the quality metrics or in the number of trials that were ineffective for lack of interpreters. Frankly, I wonder how far the Government have taken into account the difficulties of gathering data and making complaints when the primary sources are the primary users, whose difficulty with using the English language is the very factor that gives rise to their need of the service in the first place.
Striking points were made by witnesses to the committee about interpreters turning up to hearings without the time to attend pre-hearing conferences with counsel, because they were not paid to appear before the start time of the hearing. Then there were the dialect difficulties. One witness gave striking evidence of a GMC hearing, where the complainant witness spoke a particular Afghani dialect of Pashto, rather than a Pakistani dialect familiar to the booked interpreters, and so the witness could not communicate with the arranged interpreters. The committee reported on a clear conflict between the MoJ’s data and the lived experience of witnesses, a point powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere; however, the MoJ’s response relied on the same data, despite its flaws.
On training, the committee was very clear that the standard of the qualifications of court interpreters has been insufficiently high and that a level 6 qualification ought to be required. One can see that this may, in some cases, present difficulties with rare languages or dialects. However, on a careful reading of the Government’s response, it appears that there has not been an insistence on a level 6 qualification and one is not proposed at present. The Government’s current stated position is that a level 6 qualification should be the default level for full trials—which they call professional-level assignments—but that there is to be no insistence on that. Similarly, there is to be no insistence on a level 3 qualification as the minimum for lower-level bookings—non-evidential hearings and telephone interpreting. It is unclear from Government’s response how far they will insist on contractual minimum standards for the new contracts when they are let, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, also explored.
I will make a further point on qualifications. Skill in interpreting is not limited to the ability to translate faithfully the questions put to a witness and the evidence given in the witness’s answers. That is a vital part of it and should be the aim of every interpreter. However, it is also important to stress the need for interpreters to avoid the weakness, which we frequently experience in the courts, when a less qualified interpreter gets into a discussion with a witness about both the questions put and the answers to be given. When that happens, it obscures the evidence the witness gives, reduces its credibility and, in bad cases, can seriously mislead the court.
On interpreters’ conditions, pay, hours, travel expenses and the like, considerable criticisms were made by the committee and speakers today. The committee called for minimum pay rates, subject to regular review, improved cancellation arrangements and payment for travel time and expenses, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Yardley, my noble friend Lord Shipley and a number of other speakers made similar points.
In addition, the committee commented on the widespread feeling that interpreters were inadequately recognised and valued within the existing court system, and the example of the lack of passes was given and had great deal of weight. They are treated with much less respect than their status as court professionals merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, made these points on conditions and on valuing, on which she has campaigned for years. The MoJ in its response disagreed with the committee’s recommendations on conditions, maintaining broadly that the rate paid to interpreters is competitive. The MoJ also disagreed with the recommendation for an independent register, without any convincing argument for that disagreement. However, there is evidence that the present system encourages interpreters to seek off-contract bookings, rather than bookings through the MoJ’s contracted suppliers. Of course, the ministry has an obligation to secure the best value for money for the taxpayer, but it is unclear that the present structure is achieving that—a point made by my noble friend Lord Willis.
I turn to whether the tender process designed to replace the present contract with TBW, which expires next year, ought to be paused and reviewed. The difficulty is that we are approaching the end of the TBW contract. However, the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, was that the new contract has not been signed and needs to be thoroughly reconsidered. That seems a thoroughly defensible position.
Finally, the committee was of the view, though not expressed in great detail, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, said, that the court should go much further down the road towards incorporating more translation technology into the interpretation services, with more remote interpreting and greater use of AI, as new technology advances. The Government’s response went into painfully little detail in this area while paying lip service to improving technology. I should be grateful, as would the Committee, if, when she responds to this debate, the Minister could respond to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Mott, my noble friend Lord Willis and a number of others, subject, of course, to the caveats expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins on the present limitations of AI translation for some languages. But the Minister should give us greater detail on how the Government propose that interpretation services could benefit from a fast-improving technology and a massively increasing use of AI—all that without compromising the service provided to litigants who need it in this vital area.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, like others, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and congratulate her on her appointment. She brings much experience of the criminal justice system, and I am sure she will be invaluable to the ministry. I am grateful, too, for the compelling opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his illuminating exposition. Indeed, we have heard many powerful speeches.
The multicultural society in which we live contains individuals with myriad languages and dialects. More and more individuals need access to interpretation services in our courts. The use of those services grew by nearly 6% between 2023 and 2024. This presents challenges that the Ministry of Justice, as this report makes clear, has failed to address.
The Ministry of Justice’s most recent data shows that, comparing the last nine months of this Government against the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of unfulfilled requests for court interpreters has increased by just under 24%. Worryingly, in the same time, the number of complaints about inadequate standards has increased by 48%. I will come back to that. The Minister’s predecessor’s decision to ignore advice to pause the reprocurement process until after the committee had conducted a thorough review of court interpretation and quality assurance services was flawed.
It is very regrettable that those on the front line have a negative view of court interpretation services. The Magistrates’ Association rightly pointed out that inadequate interpretation can lead to miscarriages of justice—that should be obvious to us all—as defendants cannot properly understand the legal options open to them. I highlight the evidence of Dr Windle that far too many trial interpreters have qualifications equivalent to an A-level. That is simply hopeless. The profession must be staffed by sufficiently skilled, trusted and properly paid interpreters. The observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in this respect are invaluable. The Government must listen, learn and adopt.
Even more alarming is the lacklustre quality-assurance framework. The company responsible for quality assurance conducts assessments by watching from public galleries, but interpreters in closed cases and family court sessions are shielded from accountability. The Ministry of Justice cannot in those circumstances be getting a true picture of quality. This report recommended that the assessment process should include access to whispered communications between defendants and advocates during trials. Such communication, as any practitioner knows, is integral to court proceedings. This important point was not addressed in the Government’s response and we on this side keenly await clarification.
Further, the report rightly pointed out the lack of transparency and the dearth of data available regarding the outcomes of the assessments of court interpreters. We do not know how many concerns regarding interpreters are escalated to judges, nor how many interpreters are removed from the ministry’s register. So the public cannot hold this important public service provider accountable, nor be confident that the rule of law is upheld consistently.
The Government responded by saying that they required longer to act on the recommendation to release this data—if at all. I emphasise that. This weak response must be seen as shirking accountability and hiding behind data privacy. Given the significance of interpretation quality for the delivery of justice, when will the Government commit to acting on this powerful report and what steps are they taking to ensure they are best equipped to do this?
The most direct recourse for users of interpretation services is access to a functional complaints procedure, not least because it is the practice to dismiss interpreters after they have incurred three complaints. It was therefore worrying to read that the process is not considered fit for purpose and that complaints, despite their sharp rise in recent months, appear grossly underreported. The report labelled awareness of the complaints system as “low”. That too is serious. If stakeholders—those involved—are not even aware of its existence, how can interpreters be held accountable? Worse, many of those aware of the complaints system cannot engage with it satisfactorily. It is available only in English or Welsh. I echo the report’s warning that this “must be urgently addressed”. Those most in need of help are least equipped to access it.
The Minister’s predecessor pledged to explore ways to increase awareness and methods of flagging complaints in the language of users. How exactly will the Government be doing this? They must outline the steps and methods being considered for a new complaints procedure that is accessible in different languages. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said, the Government must abandon their complacent approach to these issues.
The problems are exacerbated by the striking disconnect between the Government’s stated view of their delivery quality and reality. The report highlighted this as an overarching theme of divergence between government and those on the front line. Despite overwhelming evidence, the Government are not confronting these problems. They must set out the precise additional steps they have taken and will take to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement. Existing channels are insufficient. How will the Government resolve this information asymmetry? Otherwise, they risk wilful blindness to the true extent of the justice system’s challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made important points about data and information asymmetry.
It was a serious oversight on the ministry’s part not to pause the reprocurement process until after the committee’s findings had been reported to it. We are now in a position where the ministry has commenced retendering while unaware of the true quality and delivery of these services.
There are too many areas where the response does not go far enough. The Government must take further action to improve the quality of court interpretation services and reform their complaints system. If not, complaints will continue to soar. They must foster genuine engagement with legal professionals and front-line workers and listen to their concerns if they are to deliver justice for all.
Finally, I invite the Government to address and take seriously what the noble Lord, Lords Carter of Coles, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, a former Lord Chief Justice with great experience, had to say about the future use of voice recognition technology and translation software, at the very least for major languages. In that respect, of course, the ministry should also pay heed to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the thoughtful observations of my noble friend Lord Mott. There is a lot of expertise in this Room and the Government would be foolish to ignore it. The Minister has plenty to take away. We wish her well and we look forward to her reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for the warmth of the welcome I have received this afternoon. Today is literally my second day in the job and therefore I hope that I will be able to do justice to the wide-ranging points that have been made in this extremely important debate.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morris for her opening remarks and for securing this important debate on interpreting services in our courts. I also thank the committee for its report and the invaluable feedback it has provided to the Government and the Ministry of Justice from the interpreters and other stakeholders who spoke to it.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Morris, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have rightly reminded us of the vital importance of interpreters in courts across the board—not just the criminal courts but others, for example tribunals—in ensuring that justice is accessible to all. It is a fundamental tenet of our system that everyone is equal before the law. We are a multicultural society with many people within it, and everybody should be treated in exactly the same way.
So I can assure noble Lords that we are not complacent. We do not take this for granted, which is why the Government are continually working to improve the quality, consistency and accessibility of these services; we will continue to do so while ensuring a smooth transition to the new contracts, which are scheduled to start in October 2026.
Let me turn to the committee’s concerns about the provision of the service. Many noble Lords have spoken on some or all of these issues. I hope to be forgiven if I am not able to reflect every single point that has been made by your Lordships, as that may not be possible in the time given to me today, but this is not intended as a mark of disrespect.
I shall start with the availability of interpreters. The committee rightly raised concerns about reported issues with the service, such as a lack of available interpreters and the risks that this poses to the administration and efficiency of the justice system. I am not going to minimise the day-to-day pressures, particularly in rarer languages; as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, pointed out, I have been practising in the criminal courts for a very long time, and my experience reflects some of the frustrations expressed to the committee on occasion. However, I hope to reassure noble Lords on the overall position.
In 2024, only 0.7% of criminal trials were ineffective due to the absence of an interpreter. That is a very small number, but I do not wish to underplay the effect on a trial of a delay or of it being ineffective. Nevertheless, that was out of 115,000 listed trials and in the context of more than 200,000 booking requests. The on-contract fulfilment rate is currently 97%, with the use of off-contract interpreters closing the gap to 99.3%. The revised primary and secondary supplier structure, which will be introduced as part of the new contracts, will help to reduce off-contract usage. We continue to work with providers to recruit interpreters, particularly in priority and rarer languages.
I move next to the data on interpreting; this was raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst. The committee expressed concerns about the quality of data reports on our interpreting services. We already publish extensive data through the criminal court statistics and the Cabinet Office’s key performance indicators; nevertheless, we accept that users should not have to piece together multiple sources in order to understand what the data shows.
My noble friend Lady Morris said that the data cannot be relied on; the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, made a similar point. We are going to include additional guidance in the quarterly statistics, including explanations and signposting to all key data, so that the full picture of performance is accessible in one place. We will also explore the further publication of quality assurance and complaints material after the new contracts are implemented, engaging suppliers and the judiciary on what is proportionate and meaningful.
I make this point: the supplier surveys interpreters regularly. For example, in May 2024, there were 403 responses that had a satisfaction rating of 3.5 out of 5. Of course, that is different from simply anecdotal evidence; it provides data with which to back up conclusions.
I turn to the third area: quality assurance and governance, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Shipley and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I make the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have had extremely distinguished legal careers and bring knowledge of the area about which I am not so knowledgeable—the criminal and commercial world—to what is, I hope, my useful experience of the criminal courts.
Our existing quality assurance operation samples interpreter bookings across the Ministry of Justice estate. We are strengthening these arrangements under the new contracts to introduce a more risk-based approach, which will allow for better oversight of the service and ensure that quality assurance is robust and responsive.
The committee recommended that the Government should clearly state the requirements for when and how the Ministry of Justice informs relevant parties of problems with interpreting that might have an impact on the outcome of the case. We collect data about quality failures, but we do not publish them because they are sensitive. While we understand the intent behind this recommendation, the Government must respectfully disagree. As with any matter before the courts, the responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of justice lies with the judiciary. When a quality issue is detected, the ministry informs the court and provides necessary information. Concerns can be and are raised by other parties in attendance, and then it is for the judge to determine the appropriate course of action.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission confirmed, as of July 2024, that there were no miscarriages of justice attributed to failures in interpretation, and we have not heard of any since. We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring the highest standards of interpreting in our courts, and we are proud to lead the public sector in quality assurance for language services.
On stakeholder engagement, the committee reported that interpreters and legal professionals do not feel engaged with or represented in discussions with the Government regarding interpreting in the courts. I reassure the committee that we engage with the representative bodies of interpreters through multiple channels, including the language services external stakeholder forum, and we are going to deepen that engagement through targeted outreach to improve awareness of the complaints routes and to gather feedback, which we will act on and report back.
Complaints and feedback were particularly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The committee is concerned that the current complaints data underrepresents the true scale of problems experienced in our courts. We agree with the committee that further engagement is necessary in this area. While legal professionals are clearly aware of the general HMCTS complaints process, we recognise that more can be done to clarify and promote the interpreter-specific complaints pathway. That will form part of what I just referred to as targeted engagement with stakeholders and suppliers to ensure that legal professionals and service users understand how to raise concerns effectively. There will be further improvements in this through the new contracts, including risk-based targeted assessments where the risk is highest and auditing providers’ complaints handling so that concerns are escalated and addressed consistently.
While it is right that complaints can currently be submitted only in English and Welsh, and online translation tools are available, we recognise the need for proactive support. As such, we are in early discussions with our suppliers to explore how complaints can be flagged in the user’s native language and will update the committee on progress as we move further along the procurement process. The Government remain committed to ensuring that all court users, regardless of language or background, can raise concerns and therefore can have confidence in our interpreting services.
Remote interpreting infrastructure was raised by my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles and other noble Lords. The committee highlighted the challenges interpreters face when working remotely, particularly due to the limitations in court infrastructure. Many courts and tribunals have means to support remote hearings, including interpretation, and there is dedicated audiovisual equipment that is available in the right situation. I am not going to pretend that all these things always work well, and some of the technology, certainly in some of the courts in which I have appeared and sat in trials, is clunky—if I can use that word. It works, but sometimes perhaps not as smoothly as it might do. Again, that is being worked on.
As an ex-judge, I cannot accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that this decision should be made by the ministry rather than judges. There are some situations in which—I have personal experience of this—allowing remote interpretation literally doubles the length of the hearing. That is not true of all of them, but that is an assessment that only a judge can make on a case-by-case basis.
Many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Mott and Lord Willis of Knaresborough, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—referred to artificial intelligence and innovation. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her great expertise in the field of linguistics. I assure all noble Lords that the Ministry does not dismiss the potential of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it can bring. It is taking a proactive approach to exploring AI’s role in interpreting services, in line with the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. Our new contracts require suppliers to engage with us on developing AI capabilities, to ensure that we remain at the forefront of innovation.
Earlier this year, we ran a proof of concept in eight prisons, providing interpretation and line-by-line transcripts in around 100 languages. The pilot concluded in August and evaluation is under way, with independent academic research from Lancaster University complementing the pilot’s efforts. There was also a 15-month proof of concept at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in November 2021 which tested speech-to-text services for extradition case judgments. The accuracy was 94%, which was considered too low for extended testing.
However, it is right that 2022 discovery work on AI for language services found that uncontrolled use in courts could harm justice outcomes. Therefore, responsible use—looking at the risks as well as the great promise of AI—is at the centre of the Ministry’s approach. Extensive work on AI integration has already begun across the whole of the MoJ, and we will identify whether there are possibilities for this area and update the committee on that.
I turn to the committee’s specific concerns about interpreters. Many noble Lords raised interpreter remuneration. While we respect the sentiment behind the committee’s concerns about the level of remuneration and the calls for minimum pay rates, we do not agree that mandating pay levels is the right approach. We believe that suppliers are best placed to set rates that attract skilled professionals, while we—as the commissioning body—must ensure that these rates are fair and deliver value for money for the public. From June 2023, £2 per hour was added for face-to-face work, and from October 2024 all HMCTS face-to-face bookings have a minimum of two hours—that does not mean you get paid for two hours however long it lasts; you get paid for a minimum of two hours, but if it lasts longer than that, you get paid more.
I turn to extra uplift supply for harder-to-fill assignments. The supplier publishes a rate card—that is the floor—and dynamic pricing increases only pay, not profit. Supplier profit is commercially confidential, so it is not published, but the Ministry does monitor it. What matters most is that the terms we offer, such as a minimum booking duration of two hours, make interpreting assignments more viable and attractive. Our market engagement shows that the rates remain competitive in the public sector. I am pleased to report that the increase in the minimum face-to-face booking duration to two hours, which was introduced in October 2024, has led to improved contract fulfilment rates and a reduction in off-contract requests.
My noble friend Lady Morris raised issues around the rate of pay for cancellation. Again, this is being looked at in relation to the new contracts, and it will be more generous to the interpreters than it has been hitherto. The new contracts will improve their positions.
Qualifications were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Willis of Knaresborough. The majority of our bookings require level 6 interpreters. However, it is right to say that the justice system requires interpreting across a wide range of languages and assignment types, and our qualification framework reflects that diversity. I can confirm that the recommendations from Ann Carlisle’s independent review have been fully accepted and incorporated into the new contract’s specifications and qualifications framework. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said that there is no insistence on level 3 as the minimum level, but I do not think he is right; I think that there is now an insistence on that as a minimum level.
Our position is that a blanket requirement for all interpreters to hold the level 6 qualification for all assignment types simply does not match the Ministry of Justice’s diverse needs. It is unnecessary and impractical. For example, an awful lot of hearings across the justice system are simply setting dates. For that, we need to have the flexibility that a range can give, but the majority of hearings will always be at level 6.
The committee has recommended a single independent register for the justice system. We respect the intent but do not believe that it is either necessary or proportionate. Our register meets the diverse needs of the requirements. The Ministry of Justice register is free. It has clear entry rules and allows removal for poor performance. We are going to strengthen oversight of it through existing mechanisms rather than create a costly new body. Interpreters who do not meet our quality requirements, as I say, can be removed. The NRPSI does not offer us the level of assurance and control that we need.
Interpreter treatment and well-being was spoken to by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Willis of Knaresborough. The committee rightly highlighted the concerns about how interpreters are sometimes perceived and supported in the courtroom. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that, in many ways, the interpreter is the most important person in a courtroom when languages are in play. I want to be clear about this. We agree that interpreters are critical to the proper functioning of our courts and therefore their well-being is a matter that we take seriously. My noble friend Lady Morris spoke eloquently about some of the witnesses, how they did not feel valued or an important part of the system. That must stop; that clearly cannot be right.
That is why we are introducing improved welfare provisions in the new contracts. These include strengthened support and safeguarding guidance for those working on sensitive cases. We want to enhance the professional framework and we want clearer pathways for interpreters to opt out of assignments that may be distressing for them. Juries are frequently told in advance in criminal cases these days that there is a difficult and sensitive case, so that if they really feel that this is something they cannot do for whatever reason, they can let us know. It can only be right that interpreters also have that level of information so that they can make that decision. We are refreshing and recirculating guidance to our stakeholders, including court, tribunal and security staff, so that we can reinforce our expectations about the way in which interpreters will be treated.
Day passes are a nice idea, but they are not really a thing in most courts at the moment. There are issues, particularly in some older parts of the court estate, about how we deal with all kinds of different groups of stakeholders coming into and going out of the court estate, but with good will and an enhanced reminder of the respect that is due to this cohort, I hope that things will greatly improve.
We are also going to explore what case information can be shared with interpreters in advance of their assignments, subject to court or tribunal permissions, so they have a chance to prepare in advance. It is common, certainly in the courts that I have been in recently, for somebody to make a copy of any transcripts that are being used so that they can be provided to the interpreters to help them as they go along. There may be other ways of doing that. To respond to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that is sometimes a good reason for having a transcript—so that you can give it to the interpreter.
In conclusion, we value the committee’s scrutiny and the contributions of the interpreters and stakeholders who support access to justice every day. The principle is clear: language must never be a barrier to justice. We are proud of the progress we have already made but we are determined to deliver further practical improvements through the new contracts. This includes clearer data, higher standards, stronger assurance and a service that treats the interpreters and those who rely on them with the respect they deserve. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I look forward to working with the committee as we implement these changes.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I will not take many minutes to wind up—there is another debate to begin and we have heard a wide range of speeches from noble Lords with a whole range of experiences. I congratulate my noble friend on her inaugural speech as a Minister. She showed that her experience, and the fact that she still remembers it, is crucial and will stand her in good stead. She said she could remember with some trepidation—I forget the exact word she used—when things had gone wrong; if I have one word of advice, it would be to never forget that feeling, because the minute you do is the minute you stop trying to solve the problems.
The committee understands the complexity of this, the length of time that these problems have been in existence and that the court system has not been well funded by Governments of any party for far too long. So it is difficult, and we are grateful and appreciative of the progress that has been made. But this big contract is almost like a brick wall in front of us and, to be honest, I remain unconfident that some of the fundamental improvements will be made until we see the contract. I live in hope as far as that is concerned.
I will just respond very briefly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. I take seriously his criticism of the report; the irony is that we probably spent longer talking about it than is reflected in the report. It started with just the noble Lord, Lord Willis, speaking about it, and then we gradually realised that he had a bit of a good idea. Part way through, the Government published their road map on artificial intelligence, which we felt gave us a good hook to go forward with. Perhaps our committee did not reflect in the report our understanding of how crucial this is. It has got to happen, because it will happen whether or not the Ministry of Justice decides to take charge of it.
I thank everybody who has contributed, especially those who are not members of the committee. It shows huge commitment. I look forward to keeping in touch with the Minister and her department so that we can monitor further progress. I beg to move.
Daesh Crimes: Accountability (JCHR Report)
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights Accountability for Daesh Crimes (2nd Report, HL Paper 121).
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, it is my honour to introduce the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report, Accountability for Daesh Crimes; it is the JCHR’s second report of the 2024-25 Session, which started last December. In this work, our committee held six oral evidence sessions and heard from expert witnesses and independent officials, including the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; SO15, the counterterrorism unit of the Met Police; and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Before I proceed with introducing the report, I should pay my respects to the exceptional chair of our committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He is unable to be in the Room today as he is recovering from a serious accident that took place at Victoria Station last week—it was a collision involving a bus on which he was travelling—which has caused him some serious damage. He will probably be out of the Chamber for six to eight weeks, so I am standing in his place; I cannot do him justice, but I know that we all want to see him recover from that terrible accident.
The case of the Yazidi genocide has been close to the noble Lord’s heart—and, indeed, to mine—from the early days of the Daesh genocidal campaign. Like me, the noble Lord has visited the Yazidi camps and got to know many of the Yazidi community in the years since. He did not give up on the case, despite very poor responses from successive Governments.
Let me explain something of the background. Daesh, which is also known as Islamic State, ISIL or ISIS, is a non-state terrorist organisation that emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq in the early 2000s; if anything told us that the Iraq war was a folly, those repercussions point out very clearly that it was. Daesh has targeted religious minorities, such as the Yazidis, with the intention of destroying diverse ethno-religious identities. Women and girls have been specifically targeted and subjected to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriage, rape and sexual violence.
One of the horrors is that, at first, their own community was reluctant to have young women who had been violated over and over again returned to it. Eventually, its religious leadership took a different position and the women could be returned—but not with any of the babies they had conceived. So one of the sadnesses is that I have met girls who were only 14 or 15 when they were impregnated. They left behind babies whom they loved because they also wanted to return to their parents. It was absolutely heart-rending to be confronted with that.
It is estimated that 5,000 Yazidis were killed, while more than 200,000 were displaced from their homes. Some 2,500 to 2,700 were abducted and remain missing; we do not know where they are. In 2023, the UK Government acknowledged that acts of genocide were committed against the Yazidi people by Daesh. Earlier today, a number of Yazidi survivors visited this House. They have been closely following this inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights because they want answers as to why British Daesh fighters have not been prosecuted for their involvement in international crimes against the Yazidis, which, as I said, His Majesty’s Government finally recognised as a genocide in August 2023.
It is interesting that the German criminal courts have pronounced three judgments on genocide by members of Daesh in dealing with crimes against the Yazidi people. Yazidis are very much like the Jewish community in that, over decades and centuries, they have been discriminated against, subjected to persecution, called infidels and suffered other abuses. As the community tells us, they have endured 74 genocides, and the 2014 genocide by Daesh is in some ways ongoing because of those missing people. We wonder where so many of those women have gone. Are they still in households run by those men and their wives? Many of the women were themselves abusers of their victims.
This was also the genocide that some 900 British citizens joined. They left their lives in Britain behind and travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh, and they may well have taken part in genocidal activities against the Yazidis and other religious minorities. Some 425 jihadist volunteers are now back in the United Kingdom. Before this inquiry took place, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I met the contingent of the police that deals with war crimes or international atrocity crimes. It became clear that there had never been proper inquiries into the domestic circumstances of those who returned, whether they ever interacted with the Yazidi community and so on.
His Majesty’s Government responded to a Parliamentary Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that:
“Over 32 individuals have been convicted of terrorism offences in British courts after previously travelling to the Iraq/Syria theatre of conflict as Daesh fighters”.
Just think about it: 32 convictions out of more than 400 who returned to the UK. That was for terror-related offences only, not their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. This response was the very reason why Yazidi organisations and experts wrote to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and have been writing to people like me and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeking our views. They want to know why this has been the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the chair of the Joint Committee which continued the inquiry and published its findings shortly before recess. His Majesty’s Government have now responded to the findings and recommendations, and I wish to engage with the responses. None of the people who have returned have been convicted for the international crimes committed by Daesh in Syria and Iraq. This means that there have been no successful prosecutions of Daesh fighters in this country for any of those crimes that I have mentioned—genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The focus of the police and the CPS has been on prosecuting terrorism offences. The report calls for a fundamental change in approach to focus on international crimes such as genocide and war crimes. Otherwise, for what purpose do we sign these treaties? Jonathan Hall, King’s Counsel, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“I detected that the approach of counterterrorism police … was much more about risk management and much less about accountability”.
That is the purpose of legislation on war crimes, crimes against humanity and atrocity crimes such as genocide. The police are not really familiar with war crimes. The unit is just not trained to ask the right questions. Its approach is to ask, if this person might return, how to investigate them and potentially get a conviction under terrorism legislation and make sure that the UK is safe. It is important for them to do that, but there are other avenues that should have been explored.
The International Criminal Court came into existence only in 2000. We introduced it into domestic legislation through the International Criminal Court Act 2001, but only British nationals or British residents can be prosecuted under that legislation for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In our courts, it is limited to people who are British. As it turns out, most of those people are British and were born here, but it is very limiting. Other countries do not have such limited legislation. Even the United States, which started in the same way as us by prosecuting only people who are American nationals or who are residing in the United States, realised that that limited it because people often come to countries as visitors or find their way in, and that is the very moment when they should be charged for the crimes that they may have committed.
Ms Amal Clooney, a colleague in my chambers, gave evidence to the committee. She said that the current limits of the UK legal framework create
“a key barrier to the exercise of universal jurisdiction”.
She noted:
“The UK’s legal framework deviates from that of both civil law jurisdictions in Europe, such as Germany, and other common law jurisdictions around the world”.
We should be thinking about our current position.
The report calls on the Government to allow the UK to exercise universal jurisdiction over these crimes. This would mean that anyone who could be prosecuted in UK courts for these international crimes should be. Amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill were proposed in the report to achieve this.
Unfortunately, the responses received from His Majesty’s Government’s so far are not very encouraging. Their response in saying that prosecutions require strong evidence was correct—they do. However, they failed to use UNITAD’s evidence. UNITAD is the investigative body that was gathering evidence in Iraq and Syria about the crimes committed by Daesh. We invested millions of taxpayers’ money in contributing towards that UN mechanism, yet we failed to access it to see if there was evidence that could be used against those British returnees who were convicted only of belonging to a terrorist organisation and joining it abroad.
His Majesty’s Government also responded that investigations and prosecutions should take place close to where the crimes occurred, meaning that Iraq should be prosecuting people for these crimes. If you were to count on your hands how many rape prosecutions take place in Iraq, you will find that there are very few. A much easier way is that you have somebody in custody who is a member of Daesh. If it can be shown that they were a member, that very membership can bring down the death penalty. So, you do not bother with securing justice for the Yazidi women who were raped over and over again, and sold and resold, and treated as chattels.
Iraq and Syria have not been places where judicial systems were likely to deliver justice—certainly not for the women. Concerns raised there in relation to the right to a fair trial and weak processes, among others, continue. To this day, these countries do not have legislation that would enable them to prosecute Daesh fighters for international crimes, such as the ones I have mentioned—genocide, torture and so on.
His Majesty’s Government mentioned that the ICC is better equipped to prosecute international crimes. That is in many ways true but not for Daesh crimes, as the ICC does not have territorial jurisdiction over the territories of Syria and Iraq, where most of the crimes were perpetrated.
The very premise of the principle of universal jurisdiction is that international crimes cannot be effectively prosecuted in some countries because of ongoing conflict, involvement or complicity of those in power, which is so often the case, lack of laws, a weak judiciary, corruption and so on.
His Majesty’s Government did not accept the Joint Committee’s assessment of the lack of co-operation between UK investigative and external prosecuting bodies. Indeed, even our own domestic investigative and prosecuting bodies did not seem to be connected regarding the kind of questioning that could have taken place. It could have been, “What were your domestic arrangements while you were living in Iraq? Where were you living? Who made up your household?” You do not start by saying, “Did you rape women?” You start by finding out how people were conducting their lives when they went home at night having beheaded so many people.
His Majesty’s Government identified some developments in co-operation with international mechanisms. However, there was no working relationship with UNITAD for the entire time the mechanism was in existence. UNITAD has now been parcelled up and handed over to UN offices in the United States and it looks as though it is folding. We still do not know the reason why there was no co-operation between the British authorities and UNITAD. The response from the Government is unclear on how they work with the IIIM, which is the mechanism for investigating the crimes that took place during the Daesh interlude in Iraq and Syria. How is evidence collected by the mechanism and could any of it have applied to British citizens who joined this jihad?
I was disappointed to see that His Majesty’s Government did not welcome the recommendation on universal jurisdiction, which is the clearest thing. People from Iran, for example, come to this country not wearing elaborate, theocratic outfits that say, “I am part of the revolutionary guard” or whatever, but they arrive here suited and booted to take their children to look at our universities to see whether they should study here. They come in, but we are not able to arrest them, even if they have been identified as members of the revolutionary guard, people who have perpetrated torture and so on. That is true of others who have committed grievous crimes: if they are not residents or do not have a British passport, nothing can be done.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has twice issued the recommendation that we should revisit our universal jurisdiction law. It is there in the Daesh inquiry report, and it is in the Crime and Policing Bill report that we prepared. That recommendation was also supported in the International Development Committee report. The Government’s argument is that,
“the question of whether universal jurisdiction should apply to a particular crime is best approached collaboratively between states through treaties”.
Treaties are all fine and good, but they have to be translated into law and then into practice. There are existing treaties that impose obligations upon the UK to ensure that international crimes are criminalised and that the perpetrators are punished. This one seems to have slipped through the net; it leaves out anyone who is not a UK citizen or resident, so significantly limits our Government’s ability to deal with international crimes effectively.
Further, the report engages with the issue of deprivation of citizenship and Britons in the camps in north-east Syria, which I will also briefly cover. The inquiry found that the UK Government have, in some circumstances, stripped individuals of their citizenship. Katherine Cornett from Reprieve told the committee that
“there is a serious lack of transparency when it comes to the use of this power… The UK now uses this power more than almost any other state… Because of the lack of information, there is no demographic data about who has been stripped of their citizenship and about their gender, ethnic background or religion”.
The report calls for greater transparency over this power and how it is used. It also calls for periodic independent reviews of the use of the power.
I will just deal with the Britons who are in those camps. We saw a film by a very brave war correspondent from Sky News, which showed her interviewing a British person through the gates of a prison. It was obvious that he was British from his speech and so on, and I think he indicated that he was indeed British. So there is somebody in there, and we should be making inquiries about whether he should be brought here and put on trial.
The inquiry established that UK nationals are currently detained in camps in Syria. They are essentially open-air prisons with appalling conditions; there is a lack of food and medical assistance, and threats of violence are commonplace. The UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, Siobhán Mullally, said:
“The particular risks faced by children … must be urgently addressed and without further delay”.
They are at risk of serious abuse and of possible trafficking onwards for questionable purposes. She continued:
“Repatriation of families currently detained indefinitely in north-east Syria is a necessary first step to meeting the UK’s domestic and international law obligations of protection, effective investigation and provision of effective remedies for the serious human rights violations ongoing”.
The report calls for a proactive approach in identifying and locating minors and, where feasible, repatriating them as soon as practically possible. It also calls on the Government to undertake every effort to prosecute British individuals held in camps in Syria where there is evidence that they were involved in grievous crimes. The Daesh inquiry was an important exercise conducted by the Joint Committee to ensure that we deal with the past and the issue of Brits being involved in some of the worst atrocities seen in recent years. The very purpose of this report was to draw this to the Government’s attention, and we hoped for a more positive response from them. I can hope only that the Government will not pass on this important opportunity for a more effective and adequate way of responding to the scale of these crimes. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, as we do week after week in the operation of the Select Committee.
I have been in touch with our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He said to me that he was particularly moved by a visit he made in 2019 to Sinjar in northern Iraq, where he had harrowing meetings with Yazidi survivors. I know that his motivation to renew the Select Committee’s investigation into the crimes committed by Daesh in the previous Parliament in this Parliament was motivated by that experience. I also know that the noble Lord is very fed up not to be here; he has invested a great deal in this topic. Indeed, there is some considerable irony that one of the most sanctioned men in Parliament for his campaigning on human rights issues should be laid low by a number 24 bus. However, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, we hope that he will shortly be back to chair the committee.
I must also thank the committee’s staff for their help with the inquiry, which was long running—as I said, it started in the previous Parliament—and for preparing the evidence sessions, which were not straightforward, given the difficult nature of the evidence that we heard.
I shall make just three points. First, it is shocking that there have been no prosecutions against any Britons for the terrible crimes committed by Daesh in northern Syria and Iraq. It is true that these ghastly crimes need to be investigated and charged appropriately. As the noble Baroness observed, there is a suggestion that of the 400 or so who have returned, 32 have been tried, and they have been tried for terrorism offences rather than for any international offences. One can see why that might be done in that it is easier, and the evidence is available in the UK; we heard evidence about that. However, to do so seems to undermine the gravity of the crimes that they committed. I understand the difficulty and expense of collecting evidence in Iraq, but it is important that these crimes are properly investigated and charged.
Our point about co-ordination between the CPS, the DPP and the war crimes unit is a good one. I am afraid that the Government’s response to that was not entirely satisfactory. The Government also responded that these sorts of crimes should be tried locally. I can entirely see the logic of that position, and in a perfect world, that would be right. The terrible crimes committed in northern Syria should be tried in northern Syria, so that the victims can see justice being done. The problem with that position for the Government is that there is an air of unreality. Given the state of government in northern Syria and northern Iraq and the fact that evidence was not collected at the time, there appears to be little will to prosecute these matters effectively. The reality is that we are in a better position to try here those people who are here for their crimes, and they can serve time here for their crimes.
We must ensure that those who are here are properly investigated. This must not be swept under the carpet. However, I would not encourage the bringing of people to Britain from northern Syria to be tried. There is a balancing of competing interests between protecting national security and trying those who are already here. I appreciate that the Government’s response echoes that there is a balancing act to be performed.
My second point is about deprivation orders. As the report rightly observes, deprivation orders are a useful tool to protect public safety. That is the power of the Home Secretary to remove British citizenship from somebody who is a dual national or entitled to another nationality. Removing their British nationality removes their entitlement to come to the UK and impose any kind of national security threat.
Obviously, there are considerable safeguards around the power. There is an entitlement to appeal, as we have seen in the repeated Shamima Begum litigation. The committee’s recommendation that there was insufficient supervision was, in my view, answered in large measure by paragraph 21 of the Government’s response. There is regular reporting of numbers, but that regularity could be increased. I noticed that the last publication of numbers of deprivations went up to the end of 2023; the Government may want to consider whether it is time to publish the numbers again.
In paragraph 21, the Government noted:
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration … has the remit to review the power”
by virtue of Sections 48 to 56 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and did so in 2018 and 2024. It is important that that continues. The Government’s response was, therefore, in some measure a satisfactory answer to the points made in the report.
The final issue covered in the report was the status of children who may be British in the camps in northern Syria. As is reflected in paragraph 23 of the Government’s response, this has been government policy for some time:
“Where British unaccompanied minors and orphans are brought to our attention, it is Government policy to seek to repatriate them where feasible and subject to confirmation of identity and nationality, and any national security concerns”.
We are unsure how many there may be. Although I understand the Government’s position that it is hard to say, it is important that efforts are made to ensure that any such children’s needs are addressed as swiftly as possible.
I hope that this report has brought to light some considerable issues that the Government will continue to ponder when addressing questions in relation to the crimes committed by Daesh.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I was devastated to see the injuries that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has suffered—he sent me a photograph. I send him my very best for a swift recovery. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for stepping in and introducing this debate.
If I am a Daesh fighter who engaged in the massacre of the Yazidis between 2014 and 2017, if I am successful in making my way to Europe, I will not go to Germany or Holland, where I might be prosecuted for genocide—I will take a small boat to Dover and seek safety in the United Kingdom, where, under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, only UK nationals and residents can be prosecuted for genocide or a crime against humanity and war crimes outside of this jurisdiction.
When the then Bill was before Parliament in 2001, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, argued:
“The primary responsibility for the investigation of crimes committed outside the United Kingdom lies with the state where the crime occurred, or whose nationals were responsible. If that state is not able or willing to investigate, the ICC will … step in”.
There are 125 signatories to the Rome statute, which set up the International Criminal Court. They do not include Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey or Lebanon. Rather forlornly, from that area, they include just the state of Palestine and neighbouring Jordan. In other words, in almost all areas of the Middle East, the writ of the International Criminal Court simply does not run.
At that time, the noble and learned Baroness also said:
“The British criminal justice system is based on a territorial link to the United Kingdom … we have to be practical and ensure that we can deliver what we undertake. It is our policy to assume universal jurisdiction only where an international agreement expressly requires it. The Rome statute does not. Rather than taking jurisdiction that will be difficult to enforce, we believe that those countries in which the offences took place should be encouraged to prosecute”.—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 929.]
That is, Syria should be encouraged to prosecute. This Labour Government today pursue precisely the same line. Their response to this excellent report, on which I congratulate the committee, said:
“The most serious international crimes not covered by our universal jurisdiction policy are generally already subject to the jurisdiction of international courts or tribunals which are better placed to prosecute such offences where they are not being dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities”.
They claimed to be a strong supporter of the ICC.
Put aside for a moment these foreign nationals. As the committee heard, more than 900 UK nationals and residents went to support Daesh in the conflicts in the Middle East, and somewhere between 450 and 600 returned. There is no question that, as the United Nations declared, the attack on the Yazidi population, which involved the murder of the men and the rape and enslavement of the women and children, amounted to genocide. Not one of the returnees has been prosecuted for genocide; nor has anyone arriving at our borders, whether legally or in small boats. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out a moment ago, there is no justice or accountability for the crimes against the Yazidis anywhere in the world.
Successive Directors of Public Prosecutions have shied away from bringing proceedings under the 2001 Act. The only case of a person convicted of a war crime on a prosecution brought under the Act was brought by the Director of Service Prosecutions. That person was Corporal Payne, in the Baha Mousa case in Basra, where an Iraqi civilian was beaten and kicked to death in British custody. I was present when he pleaded guilty to a war crime—inhumane treatment of prisoners —which he did only because it was an alternative to murder. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. Payne was in charge of a detention facility, as noble Lords will remember, and invited passing British soldiers in to take a kick at the detainees. I defended in the same case a superior officer who was acquitted of neglect of duty.
At Second Reading of the then Bill in 2001, Lord Lester of Herne Hill argued that our courts
“should be ready to shoulder that responsibility should a suspected perpetrator of genocide or war crimes come within our territorial jurisdiction in circumstances where the ICC is unable to take over”.—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 939.]
That is precisely the case I am making.
In Committee, on 12 February of that year, there were amendments to make genocide and war crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. They were moved by Lord Archer of Sandwell, who served as the Solicitor-General for five years under Wilson and Callaghan; he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who was later the Attorney-General for six years under Blair. For the Liberal Democrats, Lord Avebury—the heroic Eric Lubbock—argued strongly in favour of the amendments. My colleague and friend Lord Goodhart, who is much missed, put it succinctly when he said:
“Surely it is right that we should not apply a principle of territoriality to this, but if we find on our territory those who are alleged to have committed these terribly serious crimes and if, for one reason or another, there is no possibility of the ICC exercising its own jurisdiction, we should exercise our jurisdiction in this country whatever the location of such crimes and whatever the nationality of the person alleged to have committed them”.—[Official Report, 12/2/01; col. 82.]
The amendments were withdrawn on a concession that jurisdiction would extend to residents of the UK and not just nationals, as was originally drafted.
This report gives the current Attorney-General, in the light of the failure to bring anyone to account for the Yazidi genocide, a chance to reverse the stance taken by some of his predecessors in 2001. I hope that he will support amendments to that effect in the coming Crime and Policing Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Joint Committee on Human Rights on its detailed and courageous report, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on bringing this debate. With others, I am sorry that he cannot be with us today. I, too, received the graphic photographs of his serious injuries.
The memory of the horrific crimes of Daesh, including genocide, is now fading from public consciousness. There have been so many challenging situations in the world in the past decade. However, the report makes clear that there is substantial unfinished business in respect of Daesh and the perpetrators. It has to be of widespread public concern that so few of the British citizens who perpetrated these atrocities have been brought to justice. I recognise the complexities of seeking to hold them to account before the law, as noble Lords have articulated, but the UK Government’s engagement does not compare well with prosecutions brought by other Governments and jurisdictions. I hope the Government and the new Foreign Secretary will be able to act on the clear recommendations in the report. We collectively need to find more effective ways of being alert to the risks of genocide, and responding to past offenders and bringing them to justice must be a key part of that.
Reading the report, I was particularly struck by the plight of the significant numbers of children who are detained with their parents in refugee camps in north-east Syria. The report identifies the serious risks to these children caused by the poor living conditions, as well as the risks of trafficking and radicalisation. We clearly have insufficient information about these forgotten children—their numbers, their whereabouts and the risks to them—but they are UK nationals, and they are surely innocent of any crime their parents have committed. Their plight is ongoing, and they deserve our attention and care.
Better information is a key next step here, so will the Government take steps to publish updated data on the number of Britons estimated to be detained in north-east Syria, with information disaggregated by age and gender, if that information is available? I ask the Minister: will the Government now support the call for more urgent fact-finding about the numbers and plight of these children? Will the Government be able to support more proactive attempts to repatriate these children, alongside continuing to seek to bring those who perpetuated the Daesh crimes to justice? What resources and energy are the Government prepared to commit to the task in the coming year?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate, with whom I share non-lawyer status—perhaps the only two here. This excellent report has had a somewhat chequered history, interrupted as it was by the election last year, but it has emerged stronger with new and compelling evidence.
The purposes of the JCHR inquiry were to assess the UK’s compliance with its obligations to punish genocide, to protect children from trafficking and to support British nationals, including children, in the Syrian camps. My concern is also with the first purpose—the shortcomings in the UK of the legal framework governing international crimes and challenges to accountability. As noble Lords know well, the UK is a signatory to the Geneva conventions and has a legal obligation to prevent genocide, where possible, and to punish perpetrators. The fact of genocide by Daesh against the Yazidi people is indisputable and summarised comprehensively in the report. The UK Government’s response so far rejects the main recommendations in the report, which are focused on strengthening the prevention and punishment of genocide.
To summarise the evidence of the UK’s failure to comply fully with treaty obligations: the UK has never prosecuted or convicted anyone for the crime of genocide. In this, the UK law is inconsistent. As we have heard, an individual guilty of genocidal action, and who happens to be in the UK, cannot be arrested unless the individual is a UK citizen or resident. Furthermore, the Government can—and they do—offer temporary immunity to foreign nationals implicated in genocide who visit the UK.
Also as we have heard, approximately 425 Daesh fighters have returned to the UK, of which 32 have been convicted under the terrorism-related legal framework, but none has been charged with or convicted of the international crime of genocide, despite the fact that the UK Government have formally accepted that Daesh’s action against the Yazidis constitutes genocide. Currently, UK domestic law provides only limited jurisdiction on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is worth repeating that the courts can prosecute only offences committed by UK nationals or residents or those subject to service personnel jurisdiction.
The report proposes the removal of these nationality and residence requirements in favour of universal jurisdiction. Further, it indicates that this can be achieved by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 via the Crime and Policing Bill now before the House of Lords. The amendments would provide for the adoption of universal jurisdiction alongside terrorism offences and specified greater collaboration between UK investigative bodies and NGOs, in order to strengthen the collection, preservation and use of evidence. Other recommendations include mechanisms to strengthen the research and documentation of genocide, the establishment of short-term tribunals to prosecute Daesh fighters, and the introduction of measures to enable UK courts to engage with the determination of genocide.
The Government’s arguments against the recommendations include the usual defences that a wide number of terrorism-related laws that identify and punish foreign fighters already exist; that the crimes under review are not that different from core international crime prosecutions and thus new measures are redundant; and that the difficulty in getting reliable evidence suggests that the inquiry should take place geographically close to where the crimes are alleged to have taken place, thereby facilitating access to witness evidence. Finally, the Government believe that the best approach lies in collaborating with states by means of treaties. The Government therefore conclude that amending the Criminal Court Act 2001 is not warranted.
The reply to the Government’s resistance to universal jurisdiction should be based on the underlying fundamental principles of justice and treaty obligations, not on the lack of political will or, indeed, government timidity. International law is binding on states, not individuals. Universal jurisdiction is not due to the severity of an offence, but, in the words of Geoffrey Robertson, because a crime of unforgiveable brutality ordained by a Government or a clear agent of the state exercising political power is part of the apparatus of the state, as are torturers employed by the state. Such crimes cannot be tied to a territorial jurisdiction, but rest on the truism that we are all human.
Universal jurisdiction is further justified because it may make the perpetrator pause and be aware that sometime, somewhere, some prosecutor may feel strongly enough to put him or her on trial. Also according to Robertson, an international criminal order, to which notions of frontiers and extradition rules arising therefrom, are completely foreign. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 needs revision due to the existing loophole that allows alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity to escape justice merely because of where they are from.
Other objections from the UK Government concerning the reliability of evidence can be countered by the emergence of no less than four bodies currently working on gathering and assessing evidence, including French and Swedish government initiatives, together with the results of trials of Daesh fighters already completed in Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, France and Sweden.
This failure of political will indicates that, by outsourcing accountability to other jurisdictions that may have inadequate reach and resources, the UK is not fulfilling its obligations under Article 1 of the genocide convention. It remains the fact that not one Daesh fighter has yet been prosecuted in the UK under the terms of the genocide convention. If we are to judge by results, this is a dismal record.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as the final Back-Bench speaker, I echo all noble Lords who have wished the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a speedy recovery. He is, for so many of us, the outstanding example of a successful campaigning Cross-Bench Peer. I look forward to his speedy return.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been doing some important and visionary things in recent years, this report included. I thank it for its work, and will touch on citizenship deprivation, terrorism prosecutions and the prosecution of international crimes.
First, on deprivation of citizenship, I was delighted to see the strong recommendations regarding both transparency and oversight. They reflect recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, and indeed by me when I occupied that post. In their response, the Government point out quite correctly that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published independent reviews of the deprivation power in 2018 and 2024. Successive chief inspectors have done an excellent job and I hold them in high regard.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will forgive me when I say that, having read the chief inspectors’ reports, I am less easily satisfied than him. The purpose of those inspections, in the words of the 2018 report, was only to examine
“the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office’s processes”.
Even that procedural examination had its limits. The 2024 inspection looked only at the Status Review Unit, which deals with deprivations prompted by fraud or related to serious organised crime. What were described as
“‘conducive cases’ where sensitive intelligence is relied upon to make a decision”
are handled by the Special Cases Unit and were said to be out of scope. Those cases, of course, are relevant here, so I cannot agree with the Government that existing independent oversight is sufficient.
Deprivation of citizenship on grounds conducive to the public good is a power used for national security purposes. As a measure devastating in its effects on the individual and yet exercised on the basis of secret intelligence assessments deferred to by the courts, it requires the same sort of review as is given by the security-cleared independent reviewer, in the service of Parliament and the public, to the other powers exercised by Ministers and the police in relation to terrorism and state threats. Published figures are welcome but afford only the outline of what is needed, and many questions have gone unanswered. To take an example raised in evidence by the independent reviewer, what was the intelligence case for the sudden surge in deprivations in 2017? What was the make-up of those subjected to it? What happened to them and why was deprivation used in preference to all the other tools?
This House will soon be asked to look at the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill, which seeks to reverse the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court earlier this year in N3 and ZA v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. To do our job effectively, we need to know more about how the deprivation power is exercised; the independent reviewer is the person to tell us.
One possible reason for the unusual prevalence of citizenship deprivation in the UK, and for the various executive orders that can be placed upon unconvicted persons, is the difficulty in bringing such persons to trial. Reference has already been made to the remarkably low proportion of Daesh returnees who have been prosecuted in the UK for terrorism offences. When I used to look closely at those figures during the heyday of Islamic State, much higher rates were being achieved by our continental neighbours, and I am not aware that this has changed.
Thanks to the development of the counterterrorism division of the CPS and the terrorism list in the Crown Court, the prosecution of terrorists in this country has markedly improved since 2006, when Charles Clarke, as Home Secretary, could say to the Home Affairs Select Committee:
“I think that an investigating magistrates regime is very superior to the system that we have in this country … I do not think the adversarial system has been a particularly effective means of securing justice”.
As is shown in Frank Foley’s informative book, Countering Terrorism in Britain and France, we continue to place a comparatively high premium on fairness. We do not have an offence as broad as the French “association de malfaiteurs”. We do not have investigative magistrates who can spend months or years building a case while a suspect is in custody, who face less exacting disclosure requirements and who have regard to sensitive intelligence that could never be placed before a jury in coming to their decisions. All this speaks well for our traditions of justice and our unwillingness to compromise them, but it does not make it easy to convict foreign fighters, even for terrorism offences.
That brings me, finally, to the shaming fact, which noble Lords have heard already, that no Daesh fighter has been successfully prosecuted in the UK for committing international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity or even war crimes. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady D’Souza, that this amounts to a failure of this country to acknowledge the true nature of the criminality that Daesh presented, particularly in relation to the Yazidi.
Without question, it would be hard to prosecute these crimes, but surely that is all the more reason for seeking to remove such obstacles as can be removed. After all, the Government, in their response to the report, indicate agreement with the committee’s conclusion that, where the UK has jurisdiction over international crimes, it should seek to investigate and prosecute them. Desirable, even preferable, as it might be for these crimes to be prosecuted in international or hybrid tribunals, the prospects—from what I have heard—do not look promising.
I commend the Government for the support they gave to UNITAD and that they give to the IIIM in Syria and the NCIJC in Iraq. However, like other noble Lords, I would like to know why more cannot be done to ease the path to prosecutions here. Echoing in part the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I end with three practical questions. Is it right that we have never requested evidence from UNITAD, or joined a joint investigative team for Daesh, and, if so, why? Why have we not signed or ratified the Ljubljana-Hague Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance? Why should we not remove the requirement of citizenship or residency in Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for opening the debate. Like other Members, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, a very swift recovery. I was delighted to see that he has managed to record and document his injuries in the thorough way that we would expect from him. We all hope that we will see him back at the peak of his powers as soon as possible.
We all remember the reports, a couple of years ago, from Iraq and Syria of the appalling crimes when Daesh was at its peak: the beheadings of British humanitarian aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and the American aid worker Peter Kassig; the mass murder, which has been referred to, of well over 1,000 Shia Muslim Iraqi cadets at Camp Speicher; the genocide against the Yazidis, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, discussed; and women and girls being subjected to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriage, rape and sexual violence. They really were appalling crimes—and made worse by the way they were documented and videoed, so that those who had a particularly strong stomach could watch them all online. There was a kind of unreal, appalling atrocity to them. You read about them, but nothing can quite inure you to watching them online. I watched a couple and had nightmares afterwards, so I could not watch any more after that.
In the context of all those crimes, this report is both timely and sobering. I am sure the whole Committee is united on the basic truth that the rule of law must be upheld, and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that justice is done. This is a detailed report, which touches on a wide range of questions relating to domestic law, international law and the fundamental security of our country. We on these Benches, as we did when we were in power, believe that Ministers must put the security of the British people first and foremost. The Joint Committee is right to welcome the Government’s commitment to achieve justice for survivors of Daesh crimes. It is concerning, as a number of noble Lords have said, that, of all those Daesh fighters who have returned to the UK, none has been successfully prosecuted in the UK for these appalling crimes, such as the genocide that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to.
Where a fighter has returned to the UK, we on these Benches are clear that they should be prosecuted for their crimes. While terrorism prosecutions may be more straightforward, as the committee notes in its report, prosecutions of these individuals should include international crimes, in our view. When we were in government, we took strong action to protect the British people from the risks posed by returnees, while ruthlessly pursuing justice for the victims of Daesh. The Home Secretary, as has been noted, has the power to exclude non-British nationals from the UK and, in some circumstances, where that individual would not be made stateless, strip particularly dangerous individuals of their British citizenship. We did not shy away from acting to protect public safety. Of the 900 people who were deemed to be a concern to our national security, and who travelled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist organisations, I am pleased to say that more than 100 were deprived of their British citizenship by the previous Government.
I know, of course—I read in the report—that the joint committee has concerns that the UK uses deprivation of citizenship orders more than almost any country in the world and the committee called for greater scrutiny. I also note, however, that it rightly recognised that it is important for the Government to be able to take steps such as citizenship-stripping in the interests of public safety, and that is a conclusion with which I agree. We took that action in the interests of public safety and I hope that the current Government will continue that work to keep the British people safe.
We also introduced tough new powers to prevent British citizens from entering designated terrorist hotspots, without legitimate reason, through the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Where an individual who has committed these crimes is present in the UK, they should always be prosecuted. Those new powers to prevent entry to terrorist hotspots are, I am pleased to say, already helping to bring more of those fighters to justice.
That said, we know that a number of people deemed to be of concern to our national security due to links with terrorist groups, and who have returned to the UK from Iraq and Syria, have sadly not been prosecuted so far. The committee did not report on those numbers but expressed concern about the evidence that it received on the number of Daesh fighters being put to the CPS for charging decisions; that, I am sorry to say, is minimal. I hope that the Minister replying to the debate may provide us with an update on that prosecution work today. Ministers have previously put the number of returnees and the successful prosecution rate on the record, and it would be useful to the committee to have a formal update on those figures.
On the question of Daesh fighters who remain in the region, the Government responded by stating that investigations should take place closer to where the crimes were committed to allow for a more robust evidence-gathering process. That principle is broadly right. Whatever the concerns of the committee about the legal systems in Iraq and Syria, and there are many, it has to be right that those Daesh fighters who remain in the region are prosecuted for their crimes there, if at all possible. Indeed, while the committee has raised proposals on the future of domestic legislation in respect of international law, we must always—I am sure the Government are—put the security of the British people first. That means minimising the risk of Daesh fighters who pose a threat to the British people returning to the UK, unless their return is absolutely necessary.
In conclusion, we congratulate the committee on, and thank it for, its hard work in preparing this report and we look forward to working with members of the committee in holding the Government to account on future action to bring to justice the perpetrators of those appalling crimes committed by Daesh.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to this short but informative and detailed debate.
As every other noble Lord has done, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his incredible work in chairing the committee and producing this report, as well as his wider work with and the representations he has made for many oppressed communities throughout the world, in this case the Yazidi community. He contacted me, as he probably did every noble Lord in this Room, and I have evidence of his injuries too. He wrote very movingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, of his trip to Sinjar and how it fundamentally affected him. He also said to me that he was fed up about not being here today but that, in his encounter with the No. 24, the bus came off worse. I think all noble Lords will be unsurprised at his assessment of whether a mere motor vehicle can stop his commitment to carrying out duties in this House and elsewhere.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who has proven a more than able stand-in for the noble Lord in presenting the report to the Committee and making the case. As she said, we have all heard testimony that is heart-rending in different ways. I was struck by the way she focused on the terrible crimes not just against women and children but particularly against young girls, and the way that that has impacted their lives from a very early age. As a parent of two teenage daughters, the impact that has on those girls’ lives is truly terrible to think about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, this report from the Joint Committee is timely and sobering. I thank it for its continued commitment to this most worthy of causes. Justice must be done and those guilty of carrying out Daesh’s crimes must be held to account. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, there is a real danger of the crimes against the Yazidis diminishing in our collective memory. Having spent a lot of time over a number of years in and around Holocaust education—not to make a direct comparison—I know the importance of continued testimony and awareness of the awful crimes such as those visited against the Yazidis, and it is essential that we do not forget. The importance of getting justice for the Yazidis in the round is not simply about the nuts and bolts of the legal process—it is also about the wider understanding of what happened to that community—though that is not to say that the issues around legal process here and in Iraq and Syria, which the report raises, are not terribly important. I will make some attempt to respond to the points raised.
I will begin by setting out the current situation and the Government’s policy. Daesh remains one of the most significant global terrorist threats. We continue to work closely with partners to reduce this threat, including through our work as a member of the global coalition against Daesh. While the UK and its partners in the global coalition have taken effective action against Daesh, it still poses a serious threat. Many of its members continue to enjoy impunity for heinous crimes. We must continue efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and to hold it to account.
It will not surprise any noble Lords to hear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on behalf of the Official Opposition, the safety and security of our people remains the top priority for the UK Government. The Government have been clear that anyone returning from conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be met at the UK border by Counter Terrorism Policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated to determine whether they have committed criminal offences.
I turn to the content of the committee’s report and the issues raised by noble Lords. A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy, raised universal jurisdiction. The UK’s position has not changed: we hold that international crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. This helps secure reliable evidence and witnesses for a fair and credible judicial process. The UK continues to support partners to deliver this justice. For example, last month marked the 11th anniversary of the Yazidi genocide. The UK strongly supported the passage of Iraq’s Yazidi survivors’ law and has funded its implementation. We have since provided a further £100,000 to boost Iraq’s capacity to hold Daesh to account and to increase survivor access to reparations and rehabilitation.
The UK Government exercise universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. However, prosecuting Daesh members in the UK is often difficult due to challenges with gathering evidence and securing access to suspects. I think that, despite criticism, most, if not all, noble Lords who participated in the debate this afternoon recognise those real difficulties. The police work closely with international partners and organisations to improve our access to that evidence. Investigations are a matter for the police, who are operationally independent. If they believe an offence has been committed, the police will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Decisions on prosecution are taken independently by the CPS. They are based on the availability of evidence and whether prosecution is in the public interest. A range of offences can be used to prosecute foreign fighters returned to the UK with penalties up to life imprisonment. To be clear, the police do not restrict their investigations to terrorist offences. Where there is significant evidence and a legal basis, we will prosecute in the UK. However, building these cases takes time, and we must continue efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and to hold it to account.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of using only terrorism charges in the pursuit of justice, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. The Government acknowledge the specific nature and scale of international crimes such as genocide. Perpetrators of such crimes must face justice in accordance with the principles that I have outlined. They should be investigated and charged with requisite access to robust evidence and witnesses. There is a wide range of criminal offences that can be used to prosecute returning foreign fighters. CPS charging decisions are led by the evidence, and the most appropriate charge is selected based on the evidence. Crown prosecutors must consider whether evidence is admissible, reliable and credible, and those standards do not differ in a core international crime prosecution. Prosecuting terrorism and core international crimes are not mutually exclusive and can be combined where the evidence presents itself.
Many noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, drew a comparison between the UK and other European countries, particularly Germany, in terms of success in prosecutions. It is fair to say that Germany has had some fantastic successes that are to be commended. The international community is working together to ensure that justice is done. Sharing evidence and best practice is critical, and we are grateful to our German colleagues. International comparisons in the context of prosecutions must include some caveats. There are fundamental differences between our adversarial system and inquisitorial systems, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Different systems used in other countries can impact on how material is used and exchanged. There are a number of differences, including laws around disclosure and what evidence is admissible at trial, which can be complex. Nevertheless, where there is potential evidence, prosecutors will work with police, intelligence agencies and international partners to build a case to the point where there is admissible, reliable, credible evidence satisfying the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
There were some questions from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and other noble Lords about the collection of evidence of crimes committed by Daesh. In Syria, the UN International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism—the IIIN—assists the investigation and prosecution of individuals complicit in crimes committed during the Syria conflict. We encourage all parties to engage with it and help facilitate evidence-gathering efforts, including unfettered access to sensitive sites used by the former regime’s security apparatus. The UK/IIIM memorandum of understanding signed in March 2022 enables the UK to use IIIM information in investigations and prosecutions and allows the IIIM to request UK information to support prosecutions in other jurisdictions. The MoU signals our ongoing commitment to accountability, and we continue to advocate for the IIIM to ensure that it has the resources required to conduct its operations and address the widespread impunity and suffering of the Syrian people.
Through the integrated security fund, the UK funds programmes to document human rights violations and supports the trial and convictions of perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence. The UK and the US have co-funded important guidance that sets out relevant, serious, specific advice and best practice to follow when collecting evidence of or investigating sexual and gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence. Through the Global Survivors Fund, the UK has, since 2022, has provided medical, psychosocial, legal and financial support to more than Syrian survivors of sexual violence in Turkey.
Turning to what might be termed consular issues, I note the committee’s recommendations on British nationals in north-east Syria and the repatriation of minors. Where unaccompanied British minors and orphans are brought to our attention, we aim to repatriate them where feasible, subject to confirming their identity and nationality and any national security concerns. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised specific questions on this issue. We are aware that there are British nationals, including minors, located in north-east Syria, but I am afraid that we are not in a position to comment on exact numbers due to shifting circumstances on the ground, the lack of a consular presence and the range of sources from which information is taken. We do not comment on numbers, as I said. Each request for consular assistance from Syria is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances including, but not limited to, national security.
It is fair to reflect, as was acknowledged by the committee, that conditions in Syria continue to be difficult, particularly in the north-east where there remains a high threat from terrorism and widespread political instability. This increases the challenges that the UK Government face in facilitating these repatriations. However, I can confirm that we facilitated a repatriation from Syria to the United Kingdom in August. This repatriation was in line with the long-standing policy that all requests from Syria for UK consular assistance are considered on a case-by-case basis.
I move on to deprivation and oversight, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The questions raised were about whether there is sufficient independent oversight and a lack of transparency. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in the Government’s written response to the committee’s report, we believe that there is sufficient oversight of and transparency in the use of the deprivation power. As was observed, the Government publish data on deprivation as part of the Counter-Terrorism Disruptive Powers Report. Eight such reports have been published to date.
We believe that there is also sufficient independent oversight from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who has the remit to review the power. The ICIBI conducted independent reviews of the deprivation power in reports published in 2018 and 2024. The power to deprive a person of their British citizenship on grounds that it would be conducive to the public good is used sparingly. Decisions on deprivation are not taken lightly.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he heard what I had to say about the independent chief inspector. As I understand his reports—and I have read both of those just referred to—they are limited to the processes applied by the Home Office, and the more recent one deliberately declared out of scope conducive deprivations based on sensitive intelligence. It dealt only with the much more routine deprivations of citizenship obtained by fraud and a few deprivations in connection with serious organised crime. I am just having a little difficulty understanding how the Minister can say that this oversight is in any way comparable to the sort of oversight that the independent reviewer provides of the remaining parts of the counterterrorism arsenal.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, but I am not sure that I can add a great deal of the detail that he seeks from the Despatch Box. I will be very happy to reflect on his comments in Hansard and write to him. The point I want to make, without going into details and reading out a long list, is that deprivation numbers over the past decade have largely been stable. That indicates a proportionate use of the power over a number of years.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Murray—apologies if it was not—who asked about 2024. I can confirm that the figure for 2024 is due to be published but cannot be released at this moment in time.
As time is pressing, I shall move on to the role of the CPS. Although the Government are grateful for the committee’s important work on this issue, they do not, I am afraid, accept its assessment of poor co-operation between the Metropolitan Police’s War Crimes Team and the CPS. As is outlined in the Government’s formal response to the inquiry, there are robust structures in place to ensure co-ordination and co-operation on the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. For example, the UK War Crimes Network helps achieve better information sharing and training, as well as improved co-ordination across government and with civil society organisations. We agree with the committee’s call to investigate and prosecute international crimes. The CPS also has strong working relationships with many key countries. Alongside the police, it represents His Majesty’s Government on the Eurojust Genocide Prosecution Network, an organisation that is critical to the co-ordination and sharing of best practice in investigations into genocide.
These efforts are most effective when they are conducted near the location of crimes. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, noted, there is a balancing act between competing needs in pursuing this aim, including, as I have already mentioned, in terms of national security. However, I assure the Grand Committee that, where authorities, including the CPS, have jurisdiction, they will act. The CPS has successfully prosecuted individuals who have travelled abroad to fight with Daesh.
I wish now to talk a little about the countries that have been the focus of our activities in this area. In Syria, we will support efforts to establish accountability. Justice for victims and survivors is essential, as is clarity for the families of the thousands who remain missing. We are engaging closely with the Syrian Government to ensure that accountability mechanisms are independent, impartial and transparent. Through the UK’s integrated security fund, we support programmes that document human rights violations and help bring war criminals to justice. This has resulted in the conviction of several Daesh members, including, as I have already noted, in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. Through the Global Survivors Fund, the UK has also provided support, as I have already outlined, to more than 800 Syrian survivors of sexual violence
In Iraq, the UK remains committed to achieving justice for survivors and victims of Daesh crimes. We are working bilaterally through Iraq’s National Center for International Judicial Cooperation, which facilitates international judicial co-operation and evidence sharing on counterterrorism. It is building an archive of evidence that can be accessed by the international community to promote accountability for Daesh’s crimes.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about the role of UNITAD. It is worth saying that the Government are taking steps to ensure that evidence collected by UNITAD can be used by prosecutors globally. Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council established the National Center for International Judicial Cooperation—the NCIJC—in October 2024. The centre is Iraq’s legally designated authority for international judicial co-operation and evidence sharing on counterterrorism. It holds the majority of evidence collected by the UN’s investigative team. All requests for evidence for foreign prosecutions go to the NCIJC, which then arranges for evidence to be obtained and provided. UNITAD’s mandate is to support Iraq rather than supplant the role of its judicial authorities in international judicial co-operation and information sharing. UNITAD holds some historic evidence of Daesh crimes that is not available elsewhere, but the vast majority of the existing evidence sits with the Government of Iraq.
It is worth noting that, in July, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury met the prince of the Yazidis, Mîr Hazim Tahsin Beg, to discuss the situation in Sinjar and the ongoing challenges faced by Yazidi survivors of conflict-related sexual violence.
I end by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to justice. Where we can prosecute in the UK, we will. Where we cannot, we will support others in doing so. We will continue to work with partners, old and new, to ensure that there is no refuge for perpetrators and that those responsible for Daesh’s murderous campaign face justice. I hope that I have addressed most of the questions and points made by members of the committee, but I am very happy to reflect on Hansard and engage in correspondence where I have not.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I hate to trouble the Minister again, but I asked a question about the Ljubljana-Hague convention, which is absolutely central to what the committee is talking about. The intention of that convention is to facilitate co-operation between states in investigating and prosecuting the most serious international crimes, specifically genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Admittedly, it was opened for signature only in January 2024, but, as I understand it, since that time 40 states have signed it, including all our closest neighbours: Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and, I believe, all the Nordic countries except Iceland. Even Mongolia has found time to sign it. It sounds very much like this Government’s sort of thing, so I would be perplexed and surprised if there were no intention to sign it. Either now or in writing, I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why we have not signed it yet and what the plans are for signature and ratification.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise for not answering the noble Lord’s question, despite making a note about it. I am not sure how much my answer will satisfy him. At the Ljubljana conference in 2023—the noble Lord noted that it was relatively recent—we were clear that we needed more time to review the convention text following the conclusion of the event. We already have well-established legal frameworks to facilitate international co-operation on the investigation and prosecution of international crimes, and we feel that the convention would offer few advantages over those existing arrangements. The UK remains committed to prioritising and progressing any requests for co-operation from other states in accordance with its existing legal framework. We will continue to work with our international partners to ensure that there is no impunity for international crimes.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
The noble Lord has the sympathy of all of us who are barristers, because we have all had the experience of being handed a brief at the last minute and having to struggle with issues that we had not anticipated. I will raise some of the issues that concern me still, despite his brave efforts to deal with this important report.
First, the Government are sticking to their old position that things are best investigated close to where they took place. That is a principle that we would all agree with, except in circumstances where there is no indication of that being possible, as in the places about which we are talking. We know that both Syria and Iraq have prosecuted no one. They have certainly arrested people and passed death penalties on people for being members of Daesh or ISIL, but there has been no investigation into, for example, the enslavement, the constant raping and the selling on of women, who are dealt with as commodities. There was an occasion when 19 women were put into a cage and set on fire because they refused to convert.
There are all manner of instances about which there is clear evidence, and I believe that we can be satisfied that neither Syria nor Iraq have given any kind of resolution, particularly to the Yazidi people, for the crimes that were committed by the members of this jihadist organisation. Many members in Iraq have been rounded up; there is a very peremptory trial and they are given the death penalty, but there is no investigation into the nature of the crimes that were committed and no sense that the wrongs committed against the Yazidis were given any kind of airing. That is not what justice is about.
The Minister mentioned Germany. There have been eight convictions in Germany, three for genocide and five for crimes against humanity. A number of those convictions were against women. Let us be very clear that these women were married to men who were the active service agents beheading people and doing the killing. The women were convicted of complicity in grievous crimes, where they were the orchestrators of the passing on of women to other men for their abuse to take place. Women are therefore involved in this.
When the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I met the police and the unit that deals with anything international, it became clear that for the people who were brought back and the 30 people who were convicted, as I mentioned, there was no question—the officers were frank—of the investigation involving interrogation of the kind that I mentioned in my opening address, asking what their domestic circumstances were, whether they were living with a wife or more than one wife. Often the additional women who were raped were referred to as being second and third temporary wives, and fourth, fifth and sixth wives. I am afraid that the women were complicit, too, in grievous crimes. It is why prosecution of crimes against humanity were successful. The lawyer who helped orchestrate the work in Germany was British, Amal Clooney. She was there showing how Germany’s system of law could be used because there was a willingness there to do it.
There is no indication of there being a willingness in Britain to do it. That is what has concerned us in receiving the evidence in preparation for this report. As I say, in Iraq, there have been no prosecutions for international crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, rape or servitude. There have been none, nor in Syria. I am not sure that we can be confident at this moment that that is going to be a priority for the Syrian regime.
These people were British citizens. They have returned. The skills were not present within the police to deal with this. It is not easy to recite what the normal processes would be, such as whether the police think that there might be something that they could refer to the Crown Prosecution Service, which would then decide whether there were appropriate crimes and so on. There was no question of the Crown Prosecution Service doing anything other than determining that there was evidence that these people went to Iraq and signed up to be part of ISIL and therefore were guilty of a crime under our law, but there was no investigation of whether more grievous crimes had been committed. The writ still runs. These people could easily be brought in and questioned tomorrow, but there is no indication of that happening.
One of the ways in which you could do that is by accessing the evidence gathered. I can tell noble Lords that many organisations—community organisations, women’s organisations, investigative bodies—handed over information that they had received to the IIIM. UNITAD was the receiver and archiver of the evidence. That body has been dismantled, and the archive has been handed over and put into archives at the UN and in the United States of America. What is in that? Are there references to people? Are there incidents that could be investigated that would give testimonies that, within our law, could support prosecutions of these grievous crimes?
The questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, are ones that I hope the Government will take away and think about in terms of transparency and proper review, but that is not happening. We were convinced that an inadequate review was taking place.
Also, when we asked the police whether they had ever requested evidence from UNITAD? The answer was, “We do not think so”. It would be interesting to find out properly. Was UNITAD ever asked whether it had evidence that might link to British people, English speakers? The other question is why can we not deal with this business whereby we have put such a constriction around those who can be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction, thereby limiting it. Noble Lords heard from a colleague about the fact that when this originally came before this House, when I was a comparatively new Member, we managed to extend the legislation from citizens being the only people who could be prosecuted to people who had residence here. The United States had moved away from that. We should be making it clear that it should be possible to arrest anybody who ends up in this country, even those who are not citizens, although many of these people are, so that justice can be done, and they can stand trial before a court in this country.
The Government should sign up to the Ljubljana-The Hague convention so that there is proper mutual assistance.
I am disappointed, but I promise my noble friend Lord Katz that I am not holding it against him. I know he got the brief at the last minute, and many of us have been in his circumstances before more difficult tribunals than this one. I hope that the Government take this debate away and think about some of these serious questions.
Child Houses for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brown of Silvertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the opening of more child houses in England, on the model of The Lighthouse, to provide services to child victims of sexual abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have highlighted the Lighthouse as a model of good practice in the provision of multi-agency, joined-up, child-friendly support for children affected by sexual abuse. We want to see more local areas adopt such multi-agency models and we are working across government to develop ambitious proposals to improve therapeutic support services for victims of child sexual abuse.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
I so welcome that commitment, but 500,000 children are sexually abused each year in England and Wales. Seven years ago, this single pilot centre was created in London, providing cost-effective wraparound healthcare, therapy and access to justice under one roof. It treats several hundred of the half million children who experience sexual violence every year. Scotland has seven child houses; we have one. The model works; the Children’s Commissioner and the incoming Victims’ Commissioner have called for a national rollout. Will it be rolled out and, if so, when?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. She will know that the Government have accepted—certainly from the Home Office’s perspective—the recommendations of the report on child sexual abuse from IICSA. Some recommendations have been mirrored by the recent report on grooming gangs by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. One recommendation is that we do exactly what my noble friend has said. As part of our response, we are including an ambitious proposal for therapeutic support, and we are going to work across government to look at how we can future-fund support services to enable victims and survivors to access and receive better care and support. In doing so, we have in this year doubled the support funding for adult victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to a total of £2.59 million.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I welcome the Minister’s excellent Answer to the Question from the noble Baroness, but will he go a step further and tell us that the Home Office will use the Lighthouse project as the template around the country, given that it is cheaper than existing less specialist sexual abuse services, helps children recover more quickly from terrible trauma and enables quality court decisions to be made when necessary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. As I said in my initial Answer to the Question, we have recognised the great importance and success rate of the Lighthouse model. As part of the response to the recommendations from IICSA, we are looking at how we can roll that out. That is a cross-government issue with other government departments as well as the Home Office, but we are intent on ensuring that we have an ambitious proposal for therapeutic support, and that model is certainly one we are looking to roll out still further.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to carry on in the same vein as the other question, it seems quite clear that you have to work across departments which often bump into Chinese walls. Do we have a structure where local authorities come together to have a coherent strategy in clusters to do this, and to work with the various police forces?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the important issues that came out of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 was a duty to collaborate on this issue. That duty to collaborate is now law and will incentivise and promote joint working needed to ensure that we achieve that multi-agency model of support. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are consulting on the guidance on the duty to collaborate and there will be further announcements in due course, but that very co-operative approach is what is needed.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment that the Government are giving to a multidisciplinary approach for these child care centres. The Minister will know, however, that many children are put into child care homes a very long distance away from home. Therefore, they are faced with not having community support, traditional support or other areas of expertise. What are the Government going to do to address this? These children are vulnerable to sexual exploitation because they are so far from home.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. We have tried to respond to the IICSA recommendations. From the Home Office, we also have legislation on that downstream. We are also looking at a violence against women and girls strategy, which is being developed now within the Home Office specifically, with cross-government input. The point she mentioned is extremely important to make sure that victims have support, and I will certainly look at the issues she has raised and take them into account as part of the development of the strategy.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the key word in my noble friend’s question was “holistic”: that is that the victims have to tell their story only once within the Lighthouse model—which I have visited, like many other noble Lords. What can my noble friend say about extending that holistic approach into the criminal justice system, so that those victims do not have to keep repeating their story as the cases proceed within the court system?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I first take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend for his service in the Ministry of Justice, both in opposition and in government, and his service both to government and to our party. I also thank him for being an office buddy for the past 13 months. There are four of us in a very small office, so it is great fun.
My noble friend makes an extremely important point: that we ensure that the victims of child sexual abuse are not retraumatised by having to keep on reliving their experience every time they come in front of a particular agency. That is central to ensuring we have better support for victims of sexual abuse. I will certainly examine the points that he has made and discuss them with him still further. I wish him well on the Back Benches, holding the Government to account.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
Support for victims of child sexual abuse is of course absolutely vital, but it is equally important that we tackle the issues at their root cause. What actions are the Government taking in regard to prevention of child sexual abuse?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that there is a violence against women and girls strategy that is being brought forward, and the prevention of child sexual abuse will be a considerable part of that strategy. The Home Office has accepted all the IICSA recommendations. I responded on a Statement in this House on Thursday of last week, on the work that is being done on grooming gangs. We are trying to ensure that we examine the lessons produced for us, not just by Alexis Jay in the IICSA report but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. There is an ambitious government programme not just to put resources into that but to try to learn those lessons and better co-ordinate how we respond and prevent. That includes training for police and social workers and the duty to report that is in the Crime and Policing Bill that is coming up shortly. There is a range of measures. Again, I welcome the noble Lord’s support for those measures, and his suggestions as the Crime and Policing Bill goes through this House. It is an important issue; it should not divide this House. It is one where we have an ambitious programme to help prevent future child abuse and to support victims who exist already.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I think I am like everybody across the Chamber in that we are all very favourable to some of the noises the Government are making about how they are listening on this and how they understand the issues and the problems. The issue I, and I think many others, have is it is invigorating to hear the Government say they understand the problems, but what so many of us are waiting for is action resulting from that level of understanding. As others have said, other countries have many more Lighthouses than we do; they roll them out a great deal more quickly. There appears to be something endemic in our inability to move quickly. In the interest of those children—and to echo the words of the Children’s Commissioner that every area that has had the grooming scandals should have a Lighthouse project on its doorstep—could the Government act more quickly?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Government are trying, as I know the noble Lord knows, to respond to the long-term recommendations of the Alexis Jay report, which lay relatively idle until July of last year. We have tried to re-energise the approach to those very severe areas where grooming-gang activity has taken place. We commissioned the national report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. There are a range of recommendations that we have accepted in full. Also, as I mentioned to my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, we have an ambitious programme to expand that therapeutic support, of which the Lighthouse is an extremely good model. To do that requires cross-government activity. I will happily report back to this House when plans are forwarded. I hope the noble Lord will rest assured that this Government intend to help prevent future child abuse and give support, solace and help to those people who have been victims in the past.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, just before we broke up for summer, I invited victims of the Pakistani rape gangs to come into Parliament and tell their stories. I thank many noble Lords from across the House who came to that. It was shocking to hear that one of the victims said that her niece was today being groomed, even after everything that her aunt had gone through. Will the Minister tell the House, and of course those victims, how quickly this national report will get off the ground?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. She will know that the inquiry recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, have been accepted by the Government. We have accepted the Alexis Jay IICSA recommendations—certainly from the Home Office’s perspective and we are working with other government departments on those and have an ambitious plan to put that in place. For the national inquiry to take place, we need to appoint a chair. As I said on the Statement last week, we are seeking to consult victims on the chair and on the terms of the inquiry, so they are involved in that, but I am anticipating that we will be able to respond and announce those details extremely shortly. But there is a process and we want to make sure it is done in a fair and effective manner for victims, particularly, as well as the community at large.
Grenfell Tower: Bureau Veritas
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Khan of Burnley on 17 June (HL Deb cols 1897–8), whether they have investigated the role of Bureau Veritas as the examiner of the cladding and inspector of the lifts at Grenfell Tower.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for continuing to probe on this important matter. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry thoroughly and independently examined the cause of the fire and the roles of various actors. While it was referenced in the final report, the inquiry did not criticise Bureau Veritas for its role in lift inspections at Grenfell or cladding testing. Any legal or investigative matters now sit with the appropriate authorities.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that, but is she aware that Bureau Veritas staff were inside flat 16 with the London Fire Brigade, as a contractor, before 1 am on the night of the fire, and that Bureau Veritas’s contract to inspect the lifts was out of time during the fire? On the final point, is the Minister aware that the firm that issued the quality management ISO 9001 certification for the cladding on Grenfell, made by Arconic, was Bureau Veritas in Philadelphia? I have looked at all the sites and I have not found anywhere any declarations of possible conflict of interest on all these points—that one firm was involved in so many aspects. I have only used three; there are other aspects that I could have used.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To respond to my noble friend’s important points, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry thoroughly and independently examined the cause of the fire and the roles of various actors and set out its findings publicly. Although referenced within the final report, the inquiry did not criticise Bureau Veritas for its role in lift inspection or cladding testing. The ISO 9001 certification and cladding assessment certification are two different things, and it is important that we do not confuse them. ISO 9001 is an international standard widely used to assess a company’s quality management system; it is not specific to a product. Bureau Veritas certified Arconic to ISO 9001 standards, but the product certification for the cladding that was used on Grenfell Towers was issued by the British Board of Agrément. The inquiry finding suggests that Arconic concealed test data from the British Board of Agrément. Any legal or investigative matters relating to this now rightly sit with the appropriate authorities.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on cladding, data published by the noble Baroness’s department a few days ago showed that of the 5,214 high-rise blocks with unsafe cladding, eight years after Grenfell over 50% had not started remediation, meaning that thousands of families are living in unsafe flats. What reassurances can the noble Baroness give to those people?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young. Over eight years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Our goal is clear: to remove all barriers to remediation, get buildings fixed faster and allow residents to feel safe in their homes. That is why in December last year we launched the Remediation Acceleration Plan, a comprehensive strategy to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and support affected residents. In July this year we published an update to this plan, introducing further measures to remove the barriers, strengthen accountability and expedite remediation. At present, 57% of all 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation, and for 18 metre-plus buildings with the ACM cladding, such as that in Grenfell, 97% of the identified buildings have started. We need to move quickly on this one to make sure that people are safe in their homes and feel safe.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, prosecutions of those whose decisions led to the 72 deaths at Grenfell Tower—eight years ago, as we have heard—are not expected until 2027. Does the Minister agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Can she confirm that prosecutions will begin in 2027, and can any remedies be implemented now to help those still at the financial mercy of insurance companies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The police have said that this will take time. I know that all those who are victims and survivors will want this to move forward as quickly as possible—I completely understand their concern about that. This is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Metropolitan Police, with 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. Those responsible absolutely must be held to account, and we fully support the police in this important work. That is why Ministers have agreed to provide up to £9.3 million to support the Met with additional costs of the criminal investigation in this year. We want this to move as quickly as possible, but it is very important that the investigation is conducted thoroughly and properly.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, what assurances can the Minister give that the fire performance data supplied by manufacturers to certification bodies is independently validated before approval?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, that is part of the Remediation Acceleration Plan, and we will be looking very closely at how we properly validate. The noble Lord will be aware of the changes that were made to building control inspection under his Government. We need to move forward with a proper system of building control inspection so that we can make sure that the buildings that are constructed are safe. We have also announced some significant changes to the building safety regulator, with stronger leadership, new governance and a new fast-track process, which we hope will speed up building control for new build applications by bringing in in-house specialists. I hope that that will drive this forward as fast as possible.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that almost all of the £97 million allocated to the Scottish Government for remediation has been diverted to other functions, particularly some of their vanity projects? Will she have a word with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury to see what can be done to stop this misappropriation of money?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course, housing is devolved in Scotland, and it is up to Scottish Ministers to do what they need to. I am sure that my colleague from the Treasury sitting on the Bench with me has heard what my noble friend said and will take the necessary action.
Lord Gove (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and take this opportunity to associate these Benches with the earlier comments and expressions of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his ministerial service— proof, if it were needed, of the invaluable role hereditary members continue to play in this House.
The Grenfell inquiry report made it clear that Arconic, Saint-Gobain and Kingspan all had a direct responsibility for the death of the victims in that horrendous tragedy. Can the Minister assure us that the Government have no commercial relationship with any of those firms, government agencies will not enter into commercial relationships with any of those firms, and Ministers will not appear at events sponsored by those firms complicit in murder?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I thank him for his comments about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, but I point out to him that my noble friend is in fact a life Peer. We truly value his service.
In response to the question about public contracts, we are, of course, absolutely committed to exploring all available options to take action to hold to account those companies which were criticised by the inquiry. In that spirit, the Cabinet Office said it would launch investigations into seven organisations, using the new debarment powers that came in the Procurement Act 2023. I have to say, however, that the Met Police and the Crown Prosecution Service informed the Cabinet Office that debarment investigations might unintentionally prejudice the criminal investigation, so the Cabinet Office then concluded that it was right to pause the debarment investigations while the criminal investigation was going on. However, I completely understand the noble Lord’s point, and we will do all we can to make sure that those who are responsible are brought to account.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for such widespread disillusion in our society about public life is the failure of both companies and people to be held properly to account after a disaster? Looking not just at Grenfell but more widely, what more could the Government do to reassure the general public that both companies and individual people will be held responsible when things go wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important that those responsible for such issues are held to account as quickly as possible. There will eventually be a duty of candour, ensuring that those who are questioned on such matters respond in a timely and honest way. However, in this case the legal and investigative matters are sitting with the appropriate authorities, and it is very important that we let them carry out their work effectively. It is the shared responsibility of government, regulators and industry to deliver legislative and systemic change when an issue such as this comes forward. We will take every recommendation made to us. We have already delivered significant reforms to building safety, but it is very important that the accountability phase is carried out thoroughly and properly and that people can feel that those responsible for this most horrendous of tragedies are held to account.
Pension Funds: Use of UK-listed Investment Companies
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the considerable value that UK-listed investment companies bring to the UK, making up 30% of the FTSE 250 and providing crucial funding to high-growth sectors. The Government have not undertaken a specific assessment of the use of UK-listed investment companies by pension funds. However, in November 2024, we published a general analysis of the trends of UK pension fund investment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. As he says, UK-listed investment companies are a world-leading, well-established route to investing in illiquid assets such as infrastructure, real estate, energy and life sciences—the very investments that the Government are seeking defined contribution pension investors to invest in to boost British growth. For defined contribution pension funds especially, closed-ended investment companies, which have expert management and offer diversification and daily pricing, seem an ideal way to gain exposure. Can the Minister help me understand, or perhaps write to me to explain, why the Pension Schemes Bill, at page 41 line 26, explicitly rules out using listed closed-ended investment companies to fulfil the Mansion House intent if mandation is required? Will he meet with me and other interested Peers to discuss this apparent error and how to amend or correct it in the Bill?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to her expertise and the consistency of her campaigning in this area. I fully understand the points that she is raising and recognise the important role that investment companies play in providing access to private markets. She talked about the recent Mansion House accord. I hope she agrees that the industry is moving in the right direction in diversifying its investments in the Mansion House accord, with 17 of the largest workplace pension providers having voluntarily committed to investing at least 10% of their defined contribution main default funds in private markets by 2030, with at least half of that invested in UK private assets.
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about the scope of the proposed reserve power in the Bill. The approach that we have taken quite deliberately is to ensure that the powers are suitably targeted and contain guard-rails. They are not intended to be open-ended but should be capable of serving as a backstop to the commitments that pension providers themselves have made through the Mansion House accord and will be used only if we consider that the industry has not made sufficient progress on its own. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive engagement on this issue and happy to continue to discuss it with her. As we take the Bill through Parliament, her representations and those of the wider sector will be considered alongside our broader policy objectives. Our aim remains to ensure that the reserve power is effective and proportionate, and delivers for pension savers and for the UK economy.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I express my support for my noble friend on the points made by the noble Baroness. There is an issue here that needs to be resolved. There is also a broader issue that I ask my noble friend to respond on: the use of private equity funds in pension schemes. To put it mildly, private equity has a mixed record. A blanket approval for the involvement of private equity in providing pensions has all the makings of a forthcoming disaster.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his thoughts on that matter. I do not necessarily agree with him about private equity’s role in pension funds. It has an extremely important role in investing in the infrastructure and fast-growing companies that we want to see so that the UK economy can unlock that kind of investment. As for its inclusion in the Mansion House accord, he will be aware that this is an industry agreement and that the Government are not participants in it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on this issue. On the face of it, it looks as though the Bill is embodying discrimination against listed investment companies because they focus very much on smaller infrastructure projects—it is one of their appeals to many investors, particularly to local authorities. The language favours long-term asset funds, which focus on megaprojects and are typically owned by the large megacompanies in the pension industry which benefit from the fees that are generated. Is this not a case where the industry is persuading the Government to discriminate in favour of a route that it sees as more profitable for itself and not necessarily as the right route for the country?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and pay tribute to her for her expertise in this matter and her continued campaigning. As I have said before, the Mansion House accord is an industry-led agreement. The Government are not participants in it. The proposed backstop powers in the legislation that she refers to are not intended to be open-ended but are designed to be capable of being a backstop to the commitments that pension companies themselves have made through the Mansion House accord. It makes sense for those powers to align with the commitments that have been included by the companies and the industry itself. Nevertheless, as I have said already, I am grateful for constructive engagement on this issue. As we take the Bill through Parliament, representations like the ones the noble Baroness has just made, and those of the wider sector, will be considered alongside our broader policy objectives.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we the Official Opposition understand the attraction of strengthening the economy and strengthening pension funds by investment in infrastructure. However, the Pensions Management Institute said last week that it believes the reserve—that is the mandation power in the Pension Schemes Bill—sets a “dangerous precedent” for political interference with trustees’ fiduciary duties. It warned that the Government’s proposals would deliver poor outcomes for savers. Does this not concern the Minister?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and her broad support for the Government’s agenda. This is an area where, aside from the specific issue that she raises in her question, we are in agreement that we want to see greater investment in UK infrastructure in this way. I do not agree with the specific point about savers. The measures contained within the Bill will see far greater returns for savers. That is incredibly important and lies behind a lot of the measures that we are taking.
On the specific reserve power, obviously we are very encouraged by the Mansion House accord. It builds on the existing Mansion House compact, set up by the previous Chancellor in the previous Government. In the light of this progress, the pensions review concluded it was not necessary currently to mandate investment. Instead, the Bill includes a reserve power, which will, only if necessary, enable the Government to set quantitative baseline targets for pension schemes to invest in a broader range of assets, including in the UK, for the benefit of savers and for the benefit of the economy. The Government do not anticipate exercising the power unless they consider that the industry has not delivered the necessary change on its own.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify for me, and no doubt others, to what extent the independent trustees of pension funds, when giving a mandate to investment managers, are able to forbid that manager to invest in certain areas, whether it be private equity, defence shares or whatever?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid I do not know the specific answer to the noble Lord’s question. I will happily write to him to clarify.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
If the Government are serious about growth, they need to encourage investment in private assets. When applying what many of us regard as retrospective inheritance tax to private defined contribution pension funds, HMRC has specifically excluded the opportunity to apply business property relief to assets. Given the exclusion of investment trusts in the pension Bill, which is regrettable, how are HM Government going to actively encourage and facilitate people to invest in private companies?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Our entire agenda is built around encouraging exactly what the noble Lord states. He mentioned inheritance tax. I want to clarify that pensions, and the considerable tax reliefs on them, are designed to provide income for retirement, rather than acting as a tax-planning vehicle for transferring wealth free of inheritance tax. That is an important principle to maintain. Equally, he asks how we are going to encourage investment in private assets. That is exactly what these reforms are designed to do.
Ukraine: Negotiations
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Skidelsky
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current state of negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the Question, let me quickly pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins for all the work he did with the Foreign Office and wish him well in the future.
We remain focused on putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We welcome President Trump’s efforts to end the war and are working closely with the US, Ukraine and our other partners to achieve a just and lasting peace. We continue to work with partners to ensure that Ukraine is able to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. The UK has committed £4.5 billion in military support this year alone, and we continue to ramp up economic pressure on Russia to get it to stop the killing and engage in meaningful talks.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I press him more fully to explain what contribution he thinks our country can and should make to the peace process? The Government have insisted on the need for British and European forces to be stationed in Ukraine to guarantee the integrity of any ceasefire and, indeed, of the peace settlement. The Russian Government have said that they would not accept the presence in Ukraine of boots on the ground from that source. Given this, does not the Government’s insistence on the need for such a force imply that they expect the war to continue indefinitely? If not, how and when, and with what result, do the Government expect the slaughter to end?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. The first point that needs to be made is that it is up to Russia as well to engage in meaningful talks, and it is up to Russia as well to be sincere in the efforts that it is making to bring about the ceasefire and, in the end, to come to some agreement. The contribution that we have made is by insisting that Ukraine has a voice in whatever solution we can come to an agreement about; to keep the US involved, which is crucial to the integrity of any agreement or settlement that is reached; and to move towards what we are calling a reassurance force, as the noble Lord will know, to ensure that the security guarantee that Ukraine has after any settlement is real and meaningful. That is what we are trying to do to ensure that we end the war as quickly as possible. We are supporting President Trump in his efforts to do that, but I say again that it also requires Russia to enter the talks meaningfully.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I know that he spent many years shadowing the job in opposition and only too briefly enjoyed it in government. We wish him well for the future. We are pleased to hear that he is still on the Front Bench.
In recent months, we have seen a massive increase in the number of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets, often involving hundreds of drones and missiles. Ukrainian air defences are often overwhelmed, as we saw earlier this week. Therefore, can the UK Government can do anything to supply Ukraine with additional military aid, specifically to support its air defences in the light of those attacks?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point about the need for air defences and their crucial nature. The UK, with our friends and our allies, including the Americans, who have just provided Patriot missiles as well, is seeking to ensure that we do everything we can to maintain the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. The noble Lord makes a really important point. While we were negotiating—while the Alaskan talks and other negotiations were going on—we saw an increase in the attacks on Kyiv by the Russians using those missiles. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, as ever, children are paying a terrible price in this conflict. We know about the forcible deportation of some 20,000 children from Ukraine to Russia—it is probably a lot more than that—and deliberate attempts to erase their identity. Most recently, we have heard press reports of an adoption database featuring Ukrainian children categorised by their hair and eye colour, described by an NGO as a
“slave catalogue of Ukrainian children to adopt”.
What assurances can the Minister give that the UK Government will use every means possible with their international partners, including the USA, to ensure that the fate of those children will be a red line in any peace deal?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Is it not unbelievable that, in a war in Europe, a nation is using children to further its objectives? How deplorable is that? Sometimes, words fail us. In this awful situation, we are doing everything that we can. We have made monetary provision to support the agencies working to bring the children back; we have provided millions of pounds for that. We continue to raise this at the United Nations. In all the various other international bodies on which we are represented, we continually raise this issue; we will continue to do so. It is barbaric; it is an outrage. We should all do everything that we can to protect those children and bring them back.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add a tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins. What struck me was his support right across the House and the authority that he brought to his role both in opposition and in government. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that Ukraine cannot be expected to agree to a peace settlement if there is not a proper security guarantee for its future? No leadership and no country could be expected to agree to a settlement in these circumstances without the necessary guarantee, as he mentioned.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree absolutely with that, and I think the majority of people do so too. For any ceasefire or any agreement to be meaningful, it has to be such that the security of Ukraine is guaranteed and the integrity of whatever settlement is reached is guaranteed. One thing we are sure of is that, in any plan that we take forward, we must try to do all we can to ensure that the Americans are involved as well.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming the warm and strong words of support by President Trump for Ukraine, but will the Government remind the United States Government that the warmth of President Trump’s welcome in the United Kingdom in a few days’ time will be increased by his words being turned into deeds?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
New to the Foreign Office brief as I am, let me try to say that we are very pleased that President Trump is coming and look forward to making his visit a success. Our intention is to continue to say to the United States that it remains an important partner—our most important partner—and that we will continue to work with it to bring about peace and security in Ukraine as in other parts of the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I sparred with him for over seven years as a Minister. His support both inside and outside the Chamber was not just welcome but often very important to ensure the unanimity of the focus of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country on issues such as Ukraine. Specific to Ukraine, what engagement has taken place directly with countries such as China and India, which, clearly, with the recent meetings held in China, have leverage with Russia?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We continue to raise these issues and make the case with all countries. There are regular meetings with respect to China where all sorts of issues are raised, including international matters. We also raise these issues with India. We continue to make the point on what we believe to be the correct approach in respect of Ukraine and the defence of freedom and human rights, and that that approach is in the interests of us all. We will continue to raise it with those nations.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the brute fact is surely that President Putin will continue his illegal war until he is forced to pay a much larger price than currently. What are the prospects of his country having to pay that price in relation to the effect on his economy of sanctions imposed by the US and by the European Union, and by the freezing and use by Ukraine of Russian assets abroad?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
All I can say is that we have sanctioned numerous individuals. We have taken action in all sorts of ways to deal with the shadow fleet. As far as seizing Russian assets is concerned, negotiations continue with other nations, because we need to get international agreement to do some of that, but we will take action economically to try to punish Russia as well.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, but I thought his view of the prospects for peace was somewhat glossy. Is not a better strategic assessment, first, that Putin shows absolutely no intention of seeking a protracted or final peace, perhaps other than a temporary pause for his own tactical or strategic advantage; that, secondly, the general trend of American policy is to slightly lessen or reduce the security guarantees to Europe; and, thirdly, therefore, that the security of and support to Ukraine will increasingly rest on the European pillar of NATO? I must now defer to the outcome of our own defence review. Although in many respects it was an excellent review, the resources are simply not going to be in place in time to deter Russia effectively.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord and to the House. I did not intentionally try to gloss over the seriousness of the situation that we face; I was just trying to point out the necessity for us to continue the actions we are taking to try to achieve as successful an outcome as we can. As part of that, our involvement with the Americans is extremely important. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, we know there are sometimes issues and points made either by President Trump or on behalf of him, but we try extremely hard to be positive and to build a relationship with him, because the involvement of the United States in Europe and beyond is essential to the peace and security of our nation and our alliances. We will continue to do that, and I know the noble and gallant Lord will appreciate that as well.
On spending and the European pillar, the noble and gallant Lord will know that for many decades all of us as a European collection of nations simply did not spend enough on defence. We are now starting to see increases in spending right across Europe, including in our own country, which will allow us to deal with some of the challenges that we will face. As for our own nation, I know the noble and gallant Lord wants us to go further and faster, but he will know the commitment has been made for 2.6% by 2027, with an increase to 3% in the next Parliament should the circumstances allow, and he will have read in the Defence Industrial Strategy published yesterday about the aspiration for defence and security spending to reach 5% by 2035. So, there is a trajectory. It is not as fast and as much as the noble and gallant Lord would want, but, across Europe, we are seeing an increase in defence spending which we can all welcome.
Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 and 16 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 June and 3 July be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 9th September 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-V(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Sep 2025)
“Rainwater harvesting and recycling(1) A local planning authority may not grant planning permission for a development of houses that does not incorporate rainwater harvesting in its design.(2) For the purposes of this section, rainwater harvesting includes—(a) rain collected from roofs and other surfaces above ground level, and(b) rain collected via a system of above ground pipes and tanks,and cannot include any rainwater harvesting which interferes with normal groundwater flow.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems are a compulsory part of a new developments, so as to ‘future proof’ housing in the light of climate change.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 115, 116 and 117 in my name address additions that, if included when a house was built, would help a home to be future-proofed and cheaper to run, and would address the challenges of climate change.
Amendment 115 would insert a new clause after Clause 51 to ensure that rainwater harvesting systems were a compulsory part of new developments, and would prevent a local authority from granting planning permission unless those were included in the design. Unlike many other countries around the world, the UK has very little regulation around the collection and use of rainwater. This year we saw a wetter spring, increasing storms and flooding, followed once again by a hotter, drier summer, drought and hosepipe bans. Taking water from the main supply has a financial cost and an environmental one too.
Rainwater harvesting cuts reliance on mains water, relieving pressure on available supplies from water companies and increasing resilience. The World Bank reports that rainwater harvesting can also reduce the carbon footprint associated with water treatment and distribution. Harvested rainwater can be used to water the garden or flush the loo, or it can be used in a washing machine. It is often soft water, reducing the need for softeners in hard water areas. Subject to how it is managed and how large the systems are, there is also a potential reduction in localised flood risk.
Obviously the financial and environmental savings would be higher for commercial and industrial buildings, farms and schools, but that does not mean we should overlook the long-term environmental and financial benefit to individual households or community and co-operative models. In fact, statistics from the US suggest that households can reduce water usage by 40% to 50% by using harvesting. The UN has said that, with urban populations expected to reach 68% by 2050, it is clear that, with climate change, pressure as well as rainwater harvesting will play a critical role in sustainable urban water management here as well as abroad.
The Government’s revised draft regional and water resource management plans, updated last December, highlighted that by 2055 England is looking at a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water per day between sustainable water supplies available and the expected demand. Legislation under the previous Government set a target to reduce the use of the public water supply in England per head of population by 20% by 2037-38 from the 2019-20 baseline. Surely this is one small change that could also help to meet those targets alongside the overall financial and environmental benefits. In addition, technological developments in recent years have made the systems more efficient and user friendly.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I support all three amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has brought forward. But for brevity, I am going to address my remarks to only one of them. The Private Member’s Bill she referred to when talking about her Amendment 117 was brought to the House by a Liberal Democrat Member, Max Wilkinson.
I particularly want to address the issue of rainwater harvesting. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there is an ecological issue already with us; there is insufficient water because of the changes in our weather patterns from climate change. But if the Government are not prepared to listen to those reasons, then surely from an economic point of view this amendment makes perfect sense.
First, we are already facing housing developments not being built because of water shortages, and secondly, if the Government want to get the large number of new data centres introduced, they are going to need a heck of a lot more water. It has been estimated that the large data centres use the equivalent of 50,000 homes- worth of water a day. Unless we use every single means at our disposal to utilise water properly, we are not going to be able to build the homes or the data centres that we want, so we need to look at measures such as this right now.
Some noble Lords might say that the public would not like the idea of using rainwater harvesting in their own homes. However, a recent survey by Public First asked 4,000 UK residents that question, and there was overwhelming support for the use of rainwater harvesting, both outside in people’s gardens and inside their homes for flushing the loo or using the washing machine—as the noble Baroness has said.
It is not just the noble Baroness, me and others who are making the case for rainwater harvesting. In Jon Cunliffe’s recent independent review of the future of the water industry, he made a specific recommendation about the need for rainwater harvesting to be addressed urgently. During the repeat of the Statement on the Independent Water Commission in this House on 23 July, I asked the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—whether the Government would not wait for the proposed water Bill to pick up Jon Cunliffe’s recommendation but rather look at opportunities like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to bring forward changes to building regulations so that rainwater harvesting could be mandated on new homes.
The Minister, somewhat surprisingly, immediately thought that this was a good idea—I do not often get such positive responses from the Front Bench opposite—and promised to take the matter forward and discuss it with the Minister for Water. I hope that, when the Minister responds to these amendments, she can show the House that those discussions have taken place, that the Government are taking the issue of rainwater harvesting seriously and that there will be a mandate to change building regulations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Parminter, and to offer support for Amendment 115, to which I attach my name, and for the general intention of Amendments 116 and 117. In the interests of time, I will restrict myself to Amendment 115.
I do not often take your Lordships’ House back to my Australian origins, but as this amendment has come up, I really have to. I am going back about 35 years to a place called Quirindi in north-west New South Wales. Somewhere out on the internet there is a photo of me sitting on a horse in a field, or paddock as we would say, that is dead flat and dead dry, without a blade of grass on it—that is Quirindi.
As an agricultural science student, I remember the farmer explaining how to live there. He took me out the back to the water tank, which was a very large tank that caught the water off the farmhouse roof. There was no town water in Australian farming, so that entire operation and household depended on the water that they caught off the roof. I still remember the farmer rapping on the side of the tin tank and saying, “That’s where the water is; we’re in trouble”.
Noble Lords might think, “Oh, that’s Australia—that’s far away; that’s a very distant place”. Quirindi has an annual average rainfall of 684 millimetres a year. There are parts of south-east England that have an annual rainfall of 700 millimetres a year, which is essentially the same amount. There is also the impact of the climate emergency and the fact that we are seeing more weather extremes and more drying out.
There is something Britain can learn from the Australian practices that have been enforced over history and that can be imported here for a win-win benefit. No one loses from the proposal in Amendment 115. As I think has already been mentioned, we in the UK use about 150 litres of water a day per capita. That compares with France, which uses 128; Germany, which uses 122; and Spain, which uses 120. This is expensively treated drinking water that we are using for all kinds of practices that we do not need to use drinking water for.
I am going to quote Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust:
“We also need to finally implement the use of rainwater rather than drinking water where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools, and flushing the loo. Other water-stressed countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join that party.”
I really stress the “party” element. I do not think we have mentioned the issue of flooding yet. Many of us have been speaking about the need for land management to slow the flow. What could be a better way to slow the flow than to catch that water so that it is not flooding out into our drains, water treatment plants, rivers and seas and so that we can have it available for use?
Often, when we talk about water use, there is a lot of finger-waving: “People should switch the tap off when they’re brushing their teeth and people should have shorter showers”. But what we really need is a system change that makes doing the right thing the easiest, cheapest, simplest and most natural thing to do. That is exactly what this proposal is putting forward. So this is a win-win all round: for householders, cutting their bills; for preventing flooding; for protecting the environment; and for saving energy—we do not think about this much, but moving water around and treating water uses a great deal of energy. I looked up the stats, and we do not seem to have any good stats in the UK, but globally, the United Nations says that 8% of energy use goes towards treating and moving water. That is such a waste when you have water falling on your roof that you can use right there in place. Pumping it out to a reservoir, treating it and pumping it back in—all that uses energy. This is a common-sense measure; why on earth not?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that many good things come from Australia, and she is one of them. The tapping on the tank she describes is exactly what I have been doing in Leicestershire in recent weeks. I have some experience of water harvesting, both from domestic roofs and from commercial buildings, and actually it is not very difficult, because roofs are all designed to channel water into pipes, and it is simply a matter of intercepting that water and using it.
I do have a couple of practical concerns. The first is that, as anybody who has done this will know, even a modest rain shower will give you an awful lot of water. As a result, any housing development or business premises is going to find itself with a very large need for water storage somewhere on that site, either underground or above ground. My second concern is how that water is recycled. I am not squeamish about drinking or using non-mains water. I raised a family on water drawn from an underground stream, not on the mains at all. But water left standing in a tank will grow bad and grow algae very quickly. If that is the solution, we need to find out how to treat it.
Furthermore, there is a real issue that I run into: the water companies and Ofwat will not even contemplate the danger of mingling water collected by a third party with mains water—in a header tank, in your pipes or anywhere else—because they are liable for the quality of that water. So, if you mingle it with rainwater, they will not allow you to draw mains water. The golden thread here is to find a system where rainwater is the norm and the mains is the back-up, but we are a long way from that at the moment and will be until the regulatory and practical storage issues are solved. To be clear, I thoroughly support this amendment—the spirit of it—but the practicalities of it need to be worked out effectively into the design of water systems supplying domestic and commercial premises.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Briefly, I support the amendments in this group and congratulate my noble friend on tabling them. I am particularly pleased by the reference to Slow the Flow projects, which were successful in places such as Pickering. Is it possible to achieve this through building regulations? Is it something that we should already be encouraging, without waiting for primary legislation? That would really expedite proceedings. Also, I understand that Germany is piloting solar panels on fencing. In many new developments, that might be a better than or equally good option as putting them on roofs.
I welcome these amendments and hope that the Minister might look upon them in a supportive way, but I would hope to achieve them through building regulations, which would be speedier than through primary legislation.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have nine water butts all collecting rainwater when it rains. However, further to what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, there are some issues. For instance, what falls on roofs does not necessarily arrive in a clean form; particularly in some urban areas and in others, it may be contaminated by things such as bird droppings, which would be quite a serious issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, refers rightly to the problem of having dual plumbing systems in houses. There is a serious issue to do with potential cross-contamination and, therefore, who is responsible. But on the generality of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has put forward, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Parminter, it is right that we need to conserve water, so we do not use expensively treated water from the mains supply. It is absolutely daft to be using that for washing the car or watering the roses. The roses do not care how much bacteriological contamination there is in it—they love it. From that point of view, the more the merrier. The vehicle does not mind what you wash it with either, most of the time.
I learned a great deal from my late sister, the elder of my two sisters, who died earlier this year, that I did not learn from being a chartered surveyor. She was a very senior hydrogeologist, and her point about rainwater harvesting is that you have to be careful about the infiltration that is necessary and naturally occurring. When rainwater falls on a hard surface, it runs off to a drain. What then? Does it disappear off down through some massive Thames pipeline to somewhere beyond Barking, or does it go into the soil and replenish an aquifer? If it has all been put into the loo and is going off as foul water, you lose that to the infiltration process. The more that we build, the more hard surfaces that we have and the more we pipe it away, the more we have to be concerned about infiltration.
Previously in Committee, noble Baronesses raised the point about flooding. Of course, infiltration is part and parcel of that. If you have all the run-off arriving at the same point down a modern piping system that conveys water away very quickly, you will end up with trouble. If you can detain water in some way by storage and infiltration, you stand a better chance, little by little, of dealing with some of those problems. But it is a fine balance as to what is happening, and it certainly requires a lot of further investigation.
The other amendment that attracted my attention was the one on ground source heat pump installation. I absolutely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. All I would say is that, if a heat pump requires three-fifths of what you might call the energy demand to provide heating, that means that three-fifths of whatever the alternative will be—oil or gas—is put on to the grid.
The chief problem with the grid is that it does not have the distribution capacity—I am not sure that it has the generation capacity in total, but other noble Lords are much more knowledgeable about that than I am. This raises a particular problem with housing development. I recall not so long ago going to visit a small housing development in north Dorset. The developer there had to provide energy for cooking and heating via an LPG bulk storage tank, which noble Lords will know is a very expensive way of funding your energy. That was done because the tank was provided free of charge, provided that the LPG was purchased from the particular supplier, and the reason for that was because there was not sufficient capacity in the local grid to power these things from an electrical standpoint.
That ties in, to some extent, with the other point that the noble Baroness raised, about solar power. Yes, I agree that that ought to be part and parcel of it, but maybe there is a link to be made between solar power and the efficiency thereof and the ground source heat pump. Now, I know nothing about the wattage that is needed for a ground heat source pump, but again I say that there is a trade-off, a balance between that 60% of what would otherwise be the carbon load being transferred on to either the grid or a solar panel system.
I know that in places such as Austria, there are now things that they refer to as balcony panels or balcony sheets. These are flexible sheets of material composed entirely of solar PV material. People put them up and they can power small appliances. Other people tell me that solar panels in certain configurations have become so cheap that they can now be used as a fencing panel, because it is a cheaper way of doing it. Now, I do not know what the rate of deterioration and attrition is of these panels, and that is obviously a fairly important consideration, because they contain things which are not readily recyclable and therefore there is that problem of end-of-life disposal, but I think that perhaps the noble Baroness could encourage the Minister to think about and work on getting this balance right, so that at least we cut some of the consumption—maybe not all of it, but some of it—of these expensively produced and increasingly scarce resources. To that extent, I very much support these amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I ask the noble Earl, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, perhaps rhetorically, whether they are aware of the One Million Cisterns project in Brazil, which aimed to deliver what it said on the tin and indeed has done so and was expanded subsequently. This is in the semi-arid area of Brazil, home to 18 million people. Brazil, of course, has a lot less infrastructure and is much economically poorer than the UK, yet it has been able to deliver a programme that has won United Nations awards and had all sorts of impacts. I hope the noble Lords will acknowledge that since other countries have achieved this, maybe it is not an unreasonable expectation for us to achieve it too.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I should just quickly say that we can learn a lot from Brazil as well as Australia. I am in favour of the amendment; I would just add that I did not realise that water butts were a declarable interest, and if they are, I had better declare that I too have some.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the greatest example of the gathering of rainwater that we can learn from is in Bermuda. They have stepped roofs made of limestone, so when the water lands on them the possibility of purifying the water is high—the sunlight also works as a purifier. The water then goes through the tunnels into cisterns under each house, and that is how they get their water. It is clean and pure, so if you want to capture more water to be used for drinking, it is not by mixing it with what comes out of the taps, but by recreating the miracle of Bermuda and its water. It is an island, there are no rivers—there is nothing. The only thing they have is rain. When it comes, everybody is very glad, and all their tanks are filled with beautiful water. If you want to capture more rainwater, why not learn from Bermuda?
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, invited me to acknowledge that other jurisdictions do this better. I entirely agree, but they do not always have the same regulatory baggage that we in this country seem to have; perhaps there is something that can be unpicked and dissolved there.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Although he sat on the Opposition Benches, he always approached his shadow ministerial duties in your Lordships’ House with courtesy, commitment and friendship. He was diligent, engaged and unfailingly respectful in his dealings with me and my team. While we did not always agree, I greatly valued the constructive spirit he brought to our debates, and I wish him well in whatever lies ahead; I will miss working with him.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling these probing amendments, which raise important issues about the way we prepare our housing stock for the future. Amendment 115, on rainwater harvesting, Amendment 116, on communal ground source heat pumps, and Amendment 117, on solar panels, speak to the wider challenge of how new homes can be made more resilient in the face of climate change. The principle of future-proofing is one most of us would support, but the question for government is how far and at what cost such measures should be mandated, and the practicality of doing so. Can the Minister clarify whether, in the Government’s view, current building regulations, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, already provide the right framework to encourage technologies such as rainwater capture, ground source heat pumps and solar panels, or is further regulation envisaged? Has the department carried out an assessment of the costs and benefits of making such systems compulsory, including the potential impact on house prices and affordability, and how these costs might be lowered in the future? Has it also considered the capacity of local electrical grids to support these systems and other potential loads such as EV charging?
There is also a question of consistency. To what extent are local authorities currently able to set higher environmental standards for new developments, and do the Government believe this local flexibility is the right approach, or should it be centralised?
Finally, how are the Government weighing the balance between affordability for first-time buyers on the one hand and, on the other, the need to reduce the long-term costs to households and infrastructure of failing to invest in resilience? These are the issues I hope the Minister will address, because it is that balance between ambition, practicality and cost which must guide policy in this area.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for moving her amendment. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about my noble friend Lord Khan, who is actually a friend and was a very good Minister. We really appreciate the effort he put into his role in this House, and I wish him well for the future.
We have had a very good debate this afternoon on these issues. I too declare my interest in water butts, since I have two in the garden which we use for watering it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that they fill rather quickly, so it is a good, efficient use of water, rather than using the hosepipe.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and welcome him to his new role on the Front Bench. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and echo what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about him.
I too should declare an interest in owning a water butt—I did not realise that was essential at the beginning of these amendments—but, more seriously, I thank others who have spoken to this amendment, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett, who added their names to Amendment 115. I was delighted to see the cross-party support for the concept of these amendments. I absolutely note the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, but I am sure where there is a will there is a way. A couple of years ago, I was in Tunis for a conference and I went around the old souk. I went to this little house that was set up as a museum and I got talking to the owner. Among other things, I said, “What do you do for water here?” It was midsummer; it was really hot. He said, “Come with me”. He took me to the floor and pulled up a stone that could be lifted and, rather like we heard about in Bermuda, there underneath was a whole water supply that had been gathered during the rainy season.
I note what the Minister says about not prescribing one size fits all and that we must be open to innovation. I suppose I would urge that, in all the interests we have talked about, we use what we know now and leave the door open to innovation in the future. We need to build homes that are equipped for the future. Developers will always have an eye to their financial pockets and will resist including future-proofing, as they say it will cause them expense, but some of them make huge profits and there is a little room to address these issues within that.
This is a perfect opportunity to include measures in legislation, rather than to wait for some opportunity in the future. These measures are good for the environment and will help the people who buy these homes with their bills. So, I will ponder what the Minister has said and may revert to this topic, but I will withdraw the amendment at this time.
Baroness Pinnock
“Register of planning applications from political donors(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I too will miss the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on the Government Front Bench. He always managed to respond to any questions I had with a smile. I even forgave him for living in Lancashire. We wish him well from these Benches and I hope the Minister will pass those messages on for us. We look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, also responding with a smile.
Amendment 120 in my name seeks to ensure transparency in decision-making in the planning process. The integrity of the process is vital. From my own experience, I know that objectors to a planning application can readily feel that, if they do not get their way, it is because shady deals have been done. Transparency helps to cure any such allegations.
Unfortunately, there is a recent example of a senior national politician who became far too closely involved with a developer and made hasty decisions based on pressure from the developer regarding funding and costs. The example that I have in mind is that, in 2020, the Housing Secretary, at that time Robert Jenrick MP, accepted that he approved a £1 billion housing development in the east of London unlawfully. The 1,500-home development on the Isle of Dogs was approved on 14 January, the day before the community infrastructure levy charges placed on the developments were increased. The timing of the decision
“meant Conservative Party donor Richard Desmond avoided paying around £40m”.
Mr Jenrick eventually accepted that his decision was indeed unlawful after the Government’s own planning inspector
“advised against the scheme saying it needed to deliver more affordable housing in what is London’s poorest borough”.
The inspector described the 44-storey high buildings as harming the character of the area, but, despite the clear direction from the planning inspector,
“Mr Jenrick rejected that advice and approved planning permission for the project”.
Obviously, planning permission was later rescinded following the legal challenge made by the local council. I have quoted largely from the BBC report of that event.
It is clear from this example alone that safeguards are needed. Amendment 120 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would require local planning authorities to maintain and publish a register of planning applications where the applicant has donated to the relevant Secretary of State within the preceding 10 years. This proposal aims to increase transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest in the planning process.
The amendment will mandate local planning authorities to create and publish a public register. The register will list planning applications that have been determined by the Secretary of State for Housing and Planning—or whatever the name is at any point—and the applications included would be those from applicants who have made donations to that Secretary of State within the past 10 years. That is not much of an ask, but it is yet another safeguard in the planning process. Whenever applications reach the Secretary of State, it means that they are very controversial and have been called in following referral to the planning inspector.
The planning system absolutely depends on public trust if people are to believe that the process is a fair one. Given that, I look forward to the Minister welcoming greater transparency and a very simple process to throw light on some of these more controversial decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to commend the noble Baroness for introducing a practical, sensible and necessary amendment to the Bill. Before I get to that, I want to join the chorus and give my very sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who, like others, we in the Green group have found was very approachable and extremely hard-working, and he will certainly be very much missed—I want to put that on the record.
This amendment aims to ensure that a planning authority maintains a register of applications in its area where the Secretary of State has made a determination over it and where a political donation has been associated with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, this might be called the Jenrick amendment. I will just leave that there—I will not go back over that ground.
I will make a very serious point. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about this as safeguarding the planning process. I think this is about something more important and central than that. This is about safe- guarding, or at least making a step towards restoring, trust in the political process. That is far more important and crucial. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would disagree that we have a huge problem with trust in politics.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have not been in your Lordships’ House for that long, but this is the most outrageous amendment possible. It is a baseless smear against somebody. The noble Baroness says that it is a safeguard, but this is a stunt that will do nothing to improve transparency in politics. The last two speakers talk about trust in politics while suggesting back-hands and under the counter deals are the lingua franca of planning and that there is some sort of corruption at play.
I have been a council leader for 20 years. I can tell you that, when I ran my council, while it was easy to have cheap remarks in the local newspaper about brown paper bags and so forth, on not one occasion was I ever aware, either colloquially or in practice, of even the suggestion of bribery or corruption. That is what is at the heart of this.
The noble Baroness mentioned a former Secretary of State in the other place and suggested that money passed hands. The suggestion was that he happened to meet a person at a dinner who subsequently donated through his company, quite properly and with a full declaration to the Electoral Commission. That is not improper. In politics we need to meet people outside the Westminster bubble to find out where we are.
That aside, the substance of the amendment is nonsense. We already have an organisation—a trusted public body that is outside the organisations that the noble Baroness seeks to smear—called the Electoral Commission. Every few weeks, and certainly every quarter, a summary is provided of any donation by any individual or company that exceeds £500, not just to an individual but to political parties in general. That is where people should look if they want to find malpractice or malfeasance. The hard-pressed local planning officer and his support team are not the people to act in judgment on this.
This is just a stunt. I hope that, even before the Minister stands up, the noble Baroness will think about withdrawing the amendment without further debate. This is an assault on the political integrity of our country. It is a smear that should be beneath the noble Baroness and those who speak in favour of it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am not sure that this amendment hits the target of potential corruption in relation to planning. In my view, the central problem is not with central government but with local government. We are all becoming accustomed to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who is very eloquent, describing the council that he has been involved in as a paragon of perfection over the last 20 or 30 years, and I accept what he says about his council down there in Norfolk. However, those of us who have been in legal practice over the years, and/or have been Members of the other place, and/or have had to deal in other ways with allegations of corruption, are well aware that there is a centuries-long history of local government corruption in relation to planning issues above everything else. I accept that there are protections and that most councillors, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would never consider being involved in corruption. But my experience of doing criminal corruption cases in relation to local government is that the people who commit the corruption, whether they are councillors or officers, are not the ones who subscribe to the regulations and the registers that have been set out.
We must continue to be extremely vigilant about corruption in relation to planning. There is an enormous amount of money involved. I hope that the Minister is of the view that to call this kind of amendment an appalling stunt is to lose oneself in the backwoods of local government and to be not a frequent reader of newspapers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has gone a different way, has it not?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120. Not knowing which way it would go, and not totally agreeing with my noble friend at the back, I think this raises an important point of principle that deserves to be considered.
At first glance, this is a very specific proposal, but the noble Baroness is right to highlight the broader issue that lies behind it, without the political point-scoring. It is the need for transparency, integrity and public trust in the planning system. We all recognise that planning decisions, as we have heard, are among the most contentious and sensitive areas of government, nationally and locally. Undue influence or even the perception of it can do damage to public trust in local communities and in Ministers and government. The noble Baroness is therefore right to remind us that we must be vigilant about conflicts of interest and that transparency is the best safeguard against suspicion.
The principle that the noble Baroness presses is a sound one, but there is a question of whether it is practically deliverable. Do our local planning authorities —which are, as we hear every day, underresourced—have the skills and capacity to deliver on this requirement? I am not sure that they do. Perhaps we should consider whether MHCLG should take on this responsibility, as it has greater access to the information that would be required. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this one.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate on an issue around which we need to continue to be vigilant. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120, which seeks to introduce a requirement on local planning authorities to keep a registry of planning applications made by political donors which are decided by Ministers.
The honourable Member for Taunton and Wellington brought this clause forward in the other place, and in doing so, he referred to a particular planning case that had raised cause for concern. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss that case, but I would like to echo the sentiments of the Housing Minister when I say that I also share those concerns.
However, we believe that this clause is unnecessary. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission and planning application decisions that relate to their area. This includes details and application decisions where the Secretary of State, or other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, has made the decision via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. This is set out in Article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
In addition, the Secretary of State’s decisions on planning cases are also published on GOV.UK in order to provide additional transparency. The details on GOV.UK include the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision. When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State and other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. Planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts at the time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.
Planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity. Gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the registers of Members’ and Lords’ financial interests.
Also, before any Planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance sets out that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest or where there could be a perceived conflict of interest. The planning casework unit within the department uses this information to ensure that Planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to the perception of impropriety—for example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision.
We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State and Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, we need to continue to be vigilant. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Going back to a previous group we had late last week, does the noble Lord think it could be useful that all Ministers taking planning decisions had a little bit more training, as we suggested?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
On this particular issue, they do take training, and it is deemed at the moment to be necessary, but obviously all this stuff is kept under review.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank all—well, nearly all—who have taken part in this short debate that has raised the issue of how important transparency and trust are in the planning process. It is important for the reason the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, gave, which is that often considerable sums of money are involved in planning applications; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the point that if you do not have a transparent process, social media certainly takes over, and then it is really difficult to ensure that the truth is out because you have no evidence to support it.
All I am going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is that methinks he doth protest too much. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her support and her suggestion that maybe this could be incorporated into the overview of the government department, whatever we call it these days.
Finally, the Minister in his reply said that it is okay because we take care of all this stuff already and it is already recorded. All I can say is that, in the case that I gave recounted, it took a legal challenge by Tower Hamlets Council to overturn that decision when it was declared unlawful, which drew me to think about ways of getting greater transparency into the process. I would like us to think again about that and maybe take up the idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, of somehow including it in a government process if it were not possible to do it at local government level. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Provision of green space in new housing developmentsAny application for permission for the development of housing must include provision for—(a) green spaces including private and community gardens, play areas and such other green space as the community consultation has identified as essential to them;(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, with the amendments in this group being supported all around the Committee, it suggests to me that there is a strong opinion that the Bill should not be so silent on green spaces. My Amendment 121 seeks to make it mandatory that provision for green space must be included in any application for new housing developments. It does not seek to be prescriptive as to the type of green space but leaves that open to community consultation.
Noble Lords will be aware that the revised National Planning Policy Framework recognises that green space is important, and it includes in its golden rules, where it refers to
“the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public”.
Where residential development is involved, the objective is that:
“New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces”.
The problem with that is that the wording is rather vague, and the green space is only an objective, not a requirement. At worst, that requirement could be fulfilled through off-site provision. We must learn from past developments and ensure green space provision is integral to the developments. It must be there at master-plan stage.
Let us look at some of the advantages, which I am sure noble Lords are very aware of. The BBC suggests that approximately 28% of people live more than a 15-minute walk from their nearest public park, and the Green Space Index reports that 6.1 million people have no park or green space within a 10 or 15-minute walk. The thing is that a 10 or 15-minute walk with a couple of toddlers or for an elderly person is a round trip of 30 or 40 minutes. Later in the Bill, we will get to the issue of mitigation, so I will not discuss that here except to point out that, if local delivery of mitigation is prioritised, then high-quality, nature-rich green spaces will be baked into the plans.
These are all positive things that we need to look at. There is the boosting of mental health and overall well-being. A long-term study by the University of Exeter found that living in greener areas significantly reduces mental distress and increases life satisfaction. I am sure we can all remember the disparity in access to green space during the Covid-19 lockdowns, particularly for those without gardens. It really became starkly clear, and it really intensified the public’s demand that parks are valued, because people suddenly really realised the value of their local park, be it big or small.
Then, of course, there is tackling physical inactivity. Proximity to parks and open spaces encourages physical activity. People living within 500 metres of green areas are more likely to take at least 30 minutes of daily exercise, and it has been estimated that access to quality green and blue spaces in England could save £2.1 billion a year in health costs—and that is before we get on to the environmental benefits.
Green space—trees, grass—is involved in carbon sequestration and air quality issues. Trees, shrubs and grasslands absorb CO2, acting as carbon sinks. The vegetation filters out air pollutants—for example, particulate matter—which is important with respect to ozone in urban areas. It improves urban air quality, again reducing health burdens. Green spaces tend to reduce the local temperature when it is hot in summer through shading, and cooler microclimates lessen reliance on energy-intensive air conditioning, cutting emissions from electricity use. Green spaces are win-win in every way.
Noble Lords have just been talking about flood risk reduction and water management; green spaces, with their permeable soils, vegetation and sustainable urban drainage, absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. During the debate we have just had on water management, we did not mention, for example, the city of Philadelphia, which had a very similar issue to the one that we in London have solved through the Thames tunnel. In Philadelphia, they solved it by creating masses of green space; they spent less money, yet they have the win-win situation already.
That is a lot of advantages, without mentioning the biodiversity and ecosystem services that we can get through those plantings. Strategically planted trees provide shading in summer, which I have mentioned, and wind protection in winter, improving thermal comfort for people in those areas.
Masses of research and dozens of statistics make the case for accessible, quality green space. I have read a lot of this research in the papers, but I make this case because of the sheer joy and relaxation that I personally experience from a walk in the park, whether here in London or at home in Devon. I want to ensure that that is our contribution to this Bill.
I certainly support the other amendments in this group from, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Gascoigne, who are right to put green into spatial strategies. I have also added my name to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on allotments and community gardens, which are particularly special green spaces and great promoters of community cohesion, but I will resist going on about that as I am looking forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The final two amendments in this group seek to give development corporations a duty to provide green space—again, an extremely correct ambition.
The Government must see that there is a lacuna in the Bill, as nowhere does it place any mandatory duty for the provision of green space as an essential. It is not—and should not be regarded as—an optional extra. Given the large number of Peers who have tabled amendments on this issue, I hope that the Minister will bring forward some constructive wording before Report to fulfil the aspiration all around the House. I beg to move.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 138 but first, if I may, I will join in the love-in from the previous group for the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who was momentarily with us. I wish him all the best. As the Minister can testify, he was my shadow, alongside my noble friend, on the Front Bench when I had the honour to sit on that Front Bench. As an east Lancastrian comrade, I wish him all the best with whatever he goes on to do.
My Amendment 138 seeks to insert green spaces, allotments and community gardens into the considerations of the spatial development strategy, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson for adding his name to it. Fundamentally, I see this as quite a pragmatic proposal. It sets out that these amenities should be considered in developments. It is not onerous; it is not stipulating a percentage or proportion; it just says that they should be considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it sits alongside a number of other amendments all of which push in a general movement for more green space and all of which I support. I support Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I am keen to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on her Amendment 206, because she broadens it out to include not just green infrastructure but blue infrastructure, which is good. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, all these together are saying that, where possible, we should try to put more in.
I am conscious that there is a whole raft of groups to go, so the Government Whips need not worry, because I will not repeat things I have said previously nor pre-empt the words of what will be said by far more articulate people than me in this group. But I want to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was saying. I say respectfully to the Minister that we are seeing a group of people from across this House who are keen to put more into this Bill. I am sure that when the Minister responds there will be many words arguing why this is supported but not necessary, because it will be in the NPPF and this is great, but I hope what she will understand when we all speak and from what is down in the amendments already is that it does not need to be onerous or stipulating anything specific. Even just a hat tip will be enough. I think the Government can support it, because it is in the revised NPPF. It is something that I think developers will want us to do, and it is not onerous. This is not just about nature, as important as that is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is about building communities and developments that people will enjoy living in. Before we go to the next stage of this Bill, I hope that we can find some way of coming together and some language to put in the Bill that the Government can support.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 206 in my name, I declare my interest, as in the register, as chair of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Sheehan, for their support in adding their names. I will also speak to Amendment 138B. I also wholly support the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 138 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which I have added my name. All seek to put in place ways to legislate for greater access to green and blue spaces in urban landscapes and the multiple co-benefits this can bring to people, climate and nature.
My Amendments 206 and 138B are similar in intention and are a two-pronged approach to future-proofing existing commitments into legislation, adding provisions that ensure that access to green and blue spaces is incorporated for both spatial development strategies and development corporations, and to ensuring that our planning system contributes more to the delivery of these vital spaces. Without statutory requirements, the reality is that opportunities to include green and blue spaces—things like urban water features, ponds and wetlands—from the design stage are often missed. The evidence is quite strong on that. These two amendments would ensure that when developers build new towns they design access to such spaces from the outset.
At Second Reading, I made this precise case for access to green and blue spaces. I made the point that the Government made a commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established at COP15 in 2022 and in their Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which is currently under review, that every citizen should be within 15 minutes’ walking distance of a green or blue space. I take the point that that might not be enough, especially with small children, but we need to think about the 15 minutes. In her response, the Minister indicated that further legislation was not required because this was already part of our planning system through the NPPF.
I propose two counterpoints on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out further clarity about what further strengthening measures the Government envision so that this commitment is realised. The first, as a number have already said, is that the NPPF is only guidance and is subject to interpretation by decision-makers and change by current and future Governments. Time and again we are seeing the loss of urban green space because there is a view, even in some of our current laws, that it is fine to build over green space and move it outside the city, because it is better for nature outside the city.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I support most warmly all of the amendments in this group; I believe that they are very important indeed. Approaching it as they do from slightly different points of view, they all make the same fundamental point about the importance of building in arrangements so that, from the start, we look at the importance of green space for people’s health and well-being, and for nature.
As others have most eloquently explained all the virtues, I will not rehearse them at this point, but I will make one little point through a personal anecdote, which may add to this. Some years ago, I was very seriously ill. When I was moved from intensive care finally into a ward, I was lucky enough to be beside a window where I could see the tops of green trees and birds coming to and fro. Underneath the window, there was a small pool where ducks were quacking. I love ducks and every time I heard them quack, I smiled. I am absolutely convinced that it was a real help in getting better. I believe there is strong medical evidence that those in hospital who have access to green spaces recover far better. That said, I have been in politics a long time. I am somewhat cynical and do not believe in good intentions unless they are backed by law to make things happen, so that is why I am so strongly in support of this.
I have some worries occasioned by Amendment 121, which was so ably brought forward. It says that new housing developments should have a built-in requirement for green spaces. In practice, what might happen? The Government are devoted to building more and more houses because they are needed but are the green spaces, which are so important with those housing developments, going to get equal weight? I believe that there could be conflicts in practice as this policy is developed. What I do not want to see is that, by excluding the new housing developments from having proper green spaces, we are starting to build the slums of the future. I do not suppose I shall live long enough for that; indeed, if all the over-80s are thrown out, I shall not even be here much longer. But while I am here, I shall fight.
The other points that arise come from the need to make sure that we have proper regulations—there is no substitute for that. Even then, of course, implementation is equally important. The law on the statute book or regulation that is in place but not implemented is in danger of being as though it did not exist. I believe that that is another point which it is very important to consider.
In the past, both the noble Baroness and I served on the Horticultural Sector Select Committee. I would advise Ministers, if they have time, to take a look at its report because many of the points we are discussing today were brought forward very strongly and were backed by some excellent and expert people. I have a copy here. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to quote extensively from it, but it merits consideration because, as I say, it is a backing for everything we are talking about this afternoon.
In view of the time, I will not detain the Committee further, save to say let us go for it and make the Government change their mind.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I am really privileged to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who I admire greatly from afar—and she is absolutely spot on on this occasion as well. Several noble Lords have laid out the benefits and value of nature-rich green spaces close to where people live, so I will not go through those.
I want to focus particularly on Amendments 138B and 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I commend her erudite book on green spaces and health, which is an excellent evidence-based exposition of the whole case for green spaces and health—including mental health—improvement. In the interests of transparency, I particularly commend it since she sent me a free copy.
Apart from all the evidence the noble Baroness’s work provides on health and mental health benefits, I will also give an example from the work of the Woodland Trust, which I was privileged to chair until very recently, on what it is calling “tree equity”. The trust has mapped the prevalence of woods and trees and discovered, in line with other relationships between green open space and deprivation, that the poorest communities have the least wood and tree cover. That means that deprived populations are deprived in not only a socioeconomic but an environmental sense. The Woodland Trust is now engaging with local authorities, developers and others in those most tree-deprived areas to focus on the creation of green wooded spaces to enhance health, mental health and well-being and improve the environment for these deprived communities.
The model comes from an American example that covers the whole of the United States and was developed by the Woodland Trust’s equivalent in the States—good things do come out of the United States. Chicago, an early example of where this was promoted with some vengeance, showed unexpected benefits beyond mental health and well-being. There were reduced crime rates and enhanced community engagement, and the whole project of creating more green open spaces also created community leaders of the future, who learned their skills as community leaders in tree-planting schemes and community green space and then, strangely enough, went on to champion other community action on a whole range of issues. This is about community cohesion and the development of leadership, as well creating these very important green open spaces. I commend to noble Lords the Woodland Trust’s website on “tree equity”—although I hate the term as it is very clinical for something that is very important.
Although it is a bit better than it was, at the moment the creation of green spaces associated with developments depends wholly on the commitment of local authorities and developers. Some developers and local authorities are good at doing this and some are not. Guidance and the NPPF only encourage this, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, pointed out, the NPPF is very vague in defining what standards are to be achieved, both on proximity to where people live and the quality of the green open spaces. I have seen development proposals where planting a few trees along avenues is the best they can muster.
As has already been pointed out, we need a much more fundamental approach. Master planning needs to be the space in which it happens, but encouragement and requirement needs to be built into spatial strategies, local plans and the responsibility of development corporations through statute, not simply by exhortation, as happens in the NPPF. The Minister will probably tell me—she told me this morning she was going to say this—that the NPPF is a requirement laid on local authorities and developers, but if you look at the terms of the NPPF, the reality is that it is an exhortation rather than anything that can be measured in performance.
I hope the Minister can tell us whether the Government are satisfied with developer and local authority performance on green space delivery, and, if they are not, whether she will seriously consider accepting these amendments so that a statutory requirement is included in the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join this rich debate, in which the House is blooming with eloquence as we focus on the value of green and blue to all our futures, to our health and well-being and of course to the planet. I particularly commend the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for adding blue spaces, which are what we need to focus on. I want to cross-reference Amendment 115, which we started with. We are used to the 20th-century approach: “There’s some water: we’ve got to flush it away, get rid of it, manage it”, as though water is a problem. Of course, water is crucial to our life and well-being, and we need to treasure it, value it and hold it around us, rather than treat it as a waste product, as far too often happens.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, as nearly everything has been said very much more eloquently than I would have done in support of Amendment 149. I have scrapped most of what I was going to say.
I just add that we talk about the benefits of being grounded. There are few better ways of achieving that than working with the soil, the weather and the seasons on an allotment. However, that privilege can be enjoyed only if there is an area accessible to cultivate. The allotment movement in the UK is a long-standing tradition and it should not be squeezed out simply to create more spaces to put houses on in a limited area.
I would go a little further than this amendment. The allocation of area should reflect the number of houses and the expected population. Currently, allotments are included in the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement, which is completely different from allotments. There is some overlap, but it is a different requirement. I ask whichever Minister is going to cover this whether they agree that we need some sort of metric within the planning system that says: “x population; y land allocated for allotments”—otherwise we are just in the land of good intentions, and we know where they lead.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will add three completely new points from a health perspective, and one that may I think have been covered.
The first point is that we are going through a major transition in thinking about health and in the way to create health and prevent diseases. People may well be aware that the links between nature and health and activity have been known for years, going back to the Greeks—and one could quote them. The key difference today, which I think has not yet come out yet, is the quality of the evidence that we have about that impact. It is due to researchers, including my noble friend Lady Willis, that we now understand the physiological evidence about the impact—how being in nature actually affects the body, and the biological mechanism behind this. Importantly, as the noble Baroness has shown herself and as she quoted earlier, there is evidence that green space in urban areas is even more important than in rural areas. That is the first really significant point—that the quality of evidence is now there.
The second point is that the health system is starting to act on that quality of evidence. If I say that the evidence for this is now as good as for many medicines, based on the same sort of considerations and published in the same sort of journals, there is no reason why we should not be thinking, as many people are, about how we go beyond pills. I need just to state a very simple point —that last year alone 8 million people were prescribed anti-depressants. That is an astonishing number, and this is one area where one might well think that being in nature and the activities involved would have an impact.
The third area I want to point to is government policy. It is very clear, is it not, that the new NHS plan, with its transitions from hospital to community and treatment to prevention, describes that it needs to create the sort of healthy environments that this amendment and others in this group envisage. I should have said at the beginning that I have put my name to Amendment 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which I am particularly speaking to. There are some very strong health considerations here that are different from those that have been around before. There is policy, there is evidence and there is action actually starting to happen within our health systems. It seems to me that, if this Government have the ambition to leave the country in a better place than they found it—beyond simply numbers of housing units—then they need to catch this tide and make sure that there is implementation and that we are creating healthy homes and neighbourhoods.
I shall add one final point, which has already been mentioned, about the importance of allotments and of growing—the importance not just of being engaged with nature and physical activity but of being engaged in social networks and in the activity that surrounds that. These things come together to create healthy neighbourhoods and at the heart of it are the sorts of measures that have been set forward in all these amendments.
Lord O’Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, my former colleague, as someone who has championed the idea that well-being should be the goal of government, and also as a former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—I think I will take a slightly different slant on a number of these things. First, the evidence that green spaces make a big impact on well-being and mental health is huge, far beyond what has been said here. If one looks at the book by our own noble Lord, Lord Layard, one will find, on pages 237 to 239, a good analysis of this. There is a lot of economic evidence that looks at the difference between house prices where you have green spaces and where you do not, and looks at what we call hedonic price indices. The interesting part of that is that the price differences underestimate the impact of the green space on the well-being of the occupants—it is even bigger than those economic numbers would suggest, so I am a massive fan of taking account of the well- being effects in planning of what we do.
The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury says to me, “Yes, but let’s be very careful about unintended consequences here”. If we end up with lovely inner city green spaces with allotments and all the rest of it that no one can afford, all the poor will end up in the only places they can afford and they will end up with more commuting time, which is extremely bad for their well-being and their mental health—and then we will have problems. There is a solution to this, which I hope the Minister will take on board. The Treasury has a wonderful thing called the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being, which can actually analyse all those things. I am prepared to bet that doing more on green spaces would give us a big net benefit. However, I do not know, and without that analysis of the unintended consequences on housing supply—where it is and the distributional impact—who knows? All I would stress is: please get the Treasury guys to do some work on this, using the latest estimates, because I think it will strongly back up your case.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising for not being able to take part at Second Reading; I just plead other parliamentary responsibilities. I find myself in a position where everything that needs to be said has already been said but not yet by everyone, so I will take that little proviso and carry on anyway. I strongly support Amendment 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name. I very strongly support all the other amendments in this group for the reasons that have already so eloquently been outlined by others in the Committee.
Amendment 206 is a little different, in that it would require every development corporation to prioritise green and blue spaces for all communities. We have heard about the benefits of green spaces but not so much about the benefits of blue spaces, although there are many. The difference blue spaces make to all communities has been highlighted by several noble Lords, with strong evidence to back up their claims. These spaces are parks, woodlands, riversides, lakes and ponds—they are not luxuries but essential infrastructure for biodiversity and climate resilience, with proven benefits for public health, air quality and, importantly, community cohesion, all leading to healthier, happier lives, especially for those on the poorest rungs of society.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to make two brief points. I was delighted to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, because it includes community gardens and allotments.
My first point is that I agree about allotments. Down in Cornwall, I have been involved in growing schemes, in which communities come together on common ground to produce mainly vegetables and sell the surplus to the local community. These are fantastic schemes which are very sociable and bring people together. One of our objectives in the far south-west was to allow every community to have access to a growing scheme, so that is moving on, if you like, one stage further from allotments.
My second brief point is again a reflection from the far south-west. There is somehow often an assumption that people in rural towns have easy access to green and blue spaces. If that is true anywhere, it would be in Cornwall. Believe me, I am never more surprised than when I find out that families in what we might describe as low-income, deprived areas do not get outside major town boundaries, and so areas of green space within all urban areas are incredibly important.
I hope the Minister will take note of both those observations.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I very much support the amendments in this group. I am lucky enough to live in Eastbourne, where Mary Ann Gilbert started a branch of the allotment movement in 1830. I think we have more allotments per head than any other town, and there is still a three-year waiting list. These things need planning in, and that is why I support these amendments. You cannot rely on random happenstance or a generous builder to do it; it has to be part of the way we see and develop our towns and cities, particularly if we are going in for new towns.
This is enormously important for nature. People’s experience of nature is what happens around their homes. If there is not much nature there, they do not grow up with a love for or an interest in it. If they do not grow up with a love for or an interest in it, they end up not wanting to pay for it and are happy to trample on it if there is some supposed benefit of that for humans. Building in a real understanding of nature begins with the design of our towns. That is why these amendments are so important.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has just spoken, is absolutely right that starting with perhaps good intentions but firm foundations is absolutely critical to make sure that we have nature at the heart of every community as we develop the 1.5 million new homes that the Government intend to deliver before the end of this Parliament.
I particularly commend the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. There has rightly been a reference to blue space. I actually came up with the concept in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. There are a few factors behind that, relevant to what other noble Lords have mentioned today. Perhaps it is about rivers; it is certainly about sustainable drainage and thinking about how the ponds in new estates can be truly made into environmental oases.
One of the big inspirations was when I visited the Canal & River Trust, where we discussed its activities in Birmingham. As we know, there are more canals in Birmingham than there are in the entirety of Venice, yet the interaction between residents there and their canals was minimal. People would often be living in pretty high blocks, without any exposure to nature. There was an opportunity to think about how we develop what you have, and about the fact that, in certain cities—Birmingham not being the best example—there is a complete desert of parks, while there are plenty of other cities that have designed parks in over the years. Instead of relying on an NPPF that can literally be changed at the stroke of a pen by a Minister from one reshuffle to the next, it is vital to make sure this is set firmly in legislative considerations.
Proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would make sure that green spaces are maintained. There is nothing worse than such places not being properly looked after. We see it already with areas not being watered, and so things end up dying, which is not inspiring for anybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to social prescribing. I intended to speak to that in later groups, but what he said was right. As has already been pointed out eloquently, the science is there. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, has set this out comprehensively. I first met the noble Baroness when she was director of science at Kew gardens, and we had some wonderful back and forth exchanges.
There are a couple of things worth considering. My noble friend Lady Fookes is right to talk about regulation, but I am worried we end up overregulating and almost missing the point—literally not seeing the wood for the trees. I intend to speak more on that in group 6.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, branched out into considering trees. It would be very helpful to have that paper from the Woodland Trust shared. Communities are about setting roots, but we do not want tree roots literally uprooting homes. That is an important factor for councils to consider. I commend the long-standing policy of Liverpool City Council, which plants lots of trees in planters underground. Then, when the trees mature, the council lifts them out of the ground, takes them off to a park and replants them there, so they are not damaging the infrastructure that has been designed to facilitate the rest of the neighbourhood. It is also vital that trees do not block light or interfere with telecommunications and the like.
Having heard this in both Houses, it is really important that the Government proactively consider how this matter comes back on Report. I know that if it does not go through this time, we will come back again when we get to the next local government Bill about community empowerment. We know from all the protests, rightly, that communities value this sort of infrastructure and want it to be developed. It is about the one thing that most communities agree on around development, which is why it is important that we get amendments appropriately tabled by the Government at the next stage.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I speak to my own Amendment 194 in this group, at the end—or heading towards the end—of what has been an incredibly impassioned debate with very little disagreement about the broad principles in every one of these amendments. It is an extremely good group of amendments. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for their support for my Amendment 194.
This new clause would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in all new developments. As we have heard so much in this discussion, green spaces are not just an optional extra, they are an essential part of infrastructure. They are an essential part of delivering healthy, sustainable, happy, fulfilled communities. This amendment was originally tabled by my colleague in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, the MP for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that green infrastructure is planned alongside traditional facilities that we think about, such as GPs, transport, and water connections. Development corporations must ensure that green spaces are included and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has just referenced, properly maintained. From private gardens and balconies to community gardens, this is not just about planting trees. This is about creating lasting accessible space for everyone and making sure that our communities do not have to fight for every single square inch of that greenery.
We have already heard much about the findings from Natural England, that we can reduce the need for GP appointments by 28%. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, gave an impassioned and convincing speech, and I can confirm to her that it was the National Institutes of Health which identified that acute hospital patients feel better and leave sooner if they have greenery just outside their window, let alone a hospital garden. So there is direct evidence and we heard much of it from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and I thank her for that.
Given how much we have heard, I will cut out quite a lot of the speech I prepared on this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested. There is a huge amount of consensus in this group of amendments. It seems that there is potential for us to work together and possibly—and I am looking at whichever Minister is summating for us—getting together with the relevant Ministers and seeing whether we can find some way of ensuring that this is not merely a nice to have but an essential, integral part of infrastructure.
Finally, I refer back to the lovely ducks that were so supportive outside the window of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she was very ill. Let us get our ducks in a row. Let us get together and see whether we can drive this forward as a united Chamber.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments, in different ways, all concern the provision of green and blue spaces. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raises the vital issue of whether minimum requirements for green space should be set in new housing developments. I ask the Minister whether the Government are considering such a standard and, if so, whether it would vary between urban and rural contexts.
Amendment 138 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne invites us to consider whether the current breadth of strategic provision under the spatial development strategies is sufficient in respect of green spaces and allotments. Do the Government accept that the definition may be too narrow, and if so, are they minded to expand it to give strategic planning authorities more flexibility to deliver for their residents?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I just take a moment to thank my noble friend Lord Khan for all the work he did while he was a Minister in our department. I am afraid that I will not step on the toes of the great Lancashire-Yorkshire debate, but it was true to say that my noble friend’s unfailing good humour and his ability to convene and effect collaboration, even across barriers of faith and religion that are deeply historic in nature, gave him what I think bordered on a superpower, which was great. He did so much work on the faith and communities aspect of our department’s work, as well as on elections. I especially commend his work during the passage of the Holocaust Memorial Act, which was very difficult to navigate. He dealt exceptionally well with the work on that Act. I hope that he will continue to use the networks he has built and developed, because, in a time when there are forces trying to divide us—we see that every day—we need more Lord Khans to bring us all together. I pay tribute to the work he did in that respect. I will of course continue to work with him, but he is a loss to our department.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Wilson—very briefly, because I know he will hate me doing it—for stepping in at very short notice to support me with some of the work on the Bill.
I want to thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to the provision of green and blue spaces. Of course, as we drive forward—your Lordships will have heard my new Secretary of State urging us to “build, baby, build”—it is important that we maintain the aspects that have been raised in a very interesting and important discussion this afternoon.
There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes. I want to pay tribute to the Members of this House who have contributed to the evidence base in this regard, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who was also kind enough to give me a copy of her book, and very thorough and insightful it is too. I am very grateful to all Members of this House who contribute to this evidence base. That is why existing policy and provisions already in the Bill are intended to achieve just that.
I turn first to Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who I know has a passion for protecting green spaces and ensuring that local people can use their voices to shape development in their own areas. National planning policy plays a powerful role in the planning process, as it must be taken into account both in the plan-making process and in determining individual applications.
The National Planning Policy Framework—I am sure we will talk about this lots during the Bill—requires local plans to make sufficient provision for green infrastructure and to be based on up-to-date assessments of the need for open space; it is not an optional extra or just an encouragement to do it. The designation of land as local green space also allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.
We will of course have national development management policies coming forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me whether they would vary between urban and rural sites in terms of provision and what they specify about provision; I will take that back because it is a key point. We expect in due course—that phrase that we all love so well—to have further revisions to the NPPF. Additionally, new major housing developments on land released from the green belt must be accompanied by accessible green spaces. The green infrastructure framework, published by Natural England, supports local planners, developers and communities to plan for high-quality and multifunctional green spaces.
These policy provisions provide a strong basis for securing green spaces alongside new developments. However, they also allow local planning authorities to take pragmatic approaches where necessary, which rigid legal requirements would prevent. Local planning authorities can use planning obligations and conditions to secure the long-term stewardship of green spaces, and we have heard a bit about that this afternoon. As local government funding was cut, that was a disincentive to local authorities to provide green spaces, but we continue to work with them to urge securing that through planning obligations and conditions so that it covers the long-term maintenance of these spaces as well as their initial provision. We recognise that there are too many examples of poor maintenance or of residents left facing excessive charges. We will consult this year on arrangements for maintaining communal facilities as part of ending the injustice of the fleecehold estates that we unfortunately have so many examples of around the country.
On Amendments 138, 138B and 149, I acknowledge the intent to ensure that green spaces, green and blue infrastructure, community gardens and allotments, and even ducks—I greatly appreciated that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—are all given consideration at strategic level. The National Planning Policy Framework, which new spatial development strategies are required to have regard to, sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy places which promote social interaction and healthy lives: for example, through the provision of green infrastructure. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned social interaction around allotments. Having been a councillor for many years, I can say that sometimes that social interaction on allotments is not quite as positive as we might want it to be, but I absolutely take his point.
Furthermore, where strategic planning authorities consider such spaces to be of strategic importance to the area, they are already able to set policies which reflect this. New Section 12D(4)(c) states that a spatial development strategy can specify or describe infrastructure relating to
“promoting or improving the … social or environmental well-being of that area”,
which we expect could include community gardens, allotments and green spaces. Equally, policies in relation to allotments and community garden land could be included within the terms of new Section 12D(1), which covers policies in relation to the development and use of land.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, we need to keep the contents of spatial development strategies high-level to allow for local planning authorities to set more detailed policies and site allocations through their local plans. The way that we are shaping the planning system, as I mentioned in previous sessions on the Bill, will, I hope, allow local councillors to spend more time thinking about local plans. We believe that policies to secure open space in specific developments are better set at local level, where the needs and opportunities in each area can be considered.
I turn to Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These amendments would place duties on development corporations in respect of the provision and maintenance of green and blue infrastructure. I thank the noble Baronesses for acknowledging the important role that development corporations have in the delivery of housing and other infrastructure, including those green and blue provisions. As a lifetime resident of Britain’s first new town, built under a development corporation, I know that what always surprises people about my town is how green it is. They think it will be an urban jungle; it certainly is not that. In terms of blue infrastructure, the wonderful facility we have of 120 acres of parkland, including four lakes, in the middle of the town is, without a doubt, the most popular asset our town has. I really take on board that people truly value these spaces.
Development corporations are crucial to growing the economy and delivering much-needed housing. Large-scale development and regeneration projects must go hand in hand with green and blue infrastructure. We do not want to see just houses, we want to see thriving communities, and we know just how many benefits those provisions can bring to individuals’ mental and physical well-being, social interactions and, importantly, the climate and wildlife. That is why it is crucial that development corporations take forward the provision and stewardship of green and blue space.
It is worth highlighting that development corporations are already subject to the same provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework that underpin requirements to plan for and provide open space elsewhere. Where development corporations take on local authority planning powers, their planning policies and decisions need to be informed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Although some development corporations do not take on those powers, delivery of the property projects co-ordinated by those development corporations will also ultimately be subject to the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework.
I have already set out the role and benefits of the framework in relation to green infrastructure, but it is also worth underlining its role in relation to plan making. The framework specifies that plans should set an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about evidence, and he makes a key and important point there, because fundamental to local plan production and to the future strategic plan production will be that evidence base—it really is critical. Any local councillor who has sat through a public inquiry on their local plan will know that that is inspected in great detail by the Planning Inspectorate, and the evidence base is absolutely key.
The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into consideration when preparing the development plan. We have seen this work very well in practice. For example, in Ebbsfleet, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has a strong track record of providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces. I think this kind of model is what we are looking for with development corporations. I therefore believe that up-to-date local plan coverage will ensure that green space, such as community gardens, play areas and allotments, is planned for the right level and reflects local need.
I am not entirely convinced that it would help if the freedoms that local authorities currently have to shape the green, blue and brown space in the way that best suits their communities were removed. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about empowering communities, while the direction of travel of the amendments could be that we impose conditions on them from national government. I am not sure that that is entirely helpful. I am sure that this dialogue will continue as we go through the Bill, and I am happy to have conversations—some Members have asked for meetings and I am happy to have those conversations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for his very practical suggestion of talking to Treasury colleagues about the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being. I hope that the Treasury has a focus on well-being, because if it does not, we are all in trouble. I will take that back to the Treasury.
For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I accept completely the relevance of local input and that we must not tie people’s hands. But given that the supply of allotments is far less than the demand for it, does the Minister agree with me that there needs to be a slightly firmer approach —I suggested a metric, perhaps that is too aggressive, but at least some sort of norms in planning policy as to the quantity of allotment area to be given for a given amount of population? Without that, I am worried that this is going to be just like affordable housing, which is in the next group, which, as soon as planning permission is given, is haggled down to the minimum that the developer can get away with. I hope that we can be a bit firmer on this; otherwise, we are back to good intentions again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take back the points that the noble Lord makes. The important thing not to lose in all this is that different solutions apply to different places. If I might give a brief example—this is about green space, not allotments—one development which I was responsible for literally backs on to the park with all the lakes that I was talking about earlier. As it happens, there is green space in it as well, so as you walk out of your house you are in a 120-acre lake park, and you might not need so much space in the development itself. All these local issues have to be very strongly considered. Where there are waiting lists for allotments, you may want to make more provision than elsewhere, but I will take back the point about whether some strengthening of the wording may be necessary.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it really was an honour to take part in a debate of this nature. The theme of inequity came through so strongly, and the fact that we have in this House the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who have done research into these issues, points to a very strong road map to where we should be going collectively towards Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we could coalesce around something.
I say to the Minister that we do not want to clash with the Government’s wish to empower local authorities to do the best by their communities and what their communities want, but it was the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who said that good intentions are not enough, and she is absolutely right. Incidentally, she has done so much in this House through her All-Party Gardening and Horticulture Group to introduce us to all sorts of things, and I put on record my thanks to her for that. We need to coalesce around something to put this firmly in the Bill. For all the reasons that other noble Lords have given, good intentions are not enough, and the NPPF, however it is beefed up, is still pretty vague.
The Minister can assume from everything that everybody has said that this will be coming back on Report, and I hope we can have some conversations between now and then to find something better than just good intentions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Delivery of affordable housing(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for ensuring that when planning permission is granted subject to requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes on the relevant site, such requirements are fully implemented.(2) The requirements for the delivery of affordable housing schemes referred to in subsection (1) shall be satisfied only if the percentage of the total housing constructed let as social rent housing exceeds the percentage set out in the authority’s affordable housing threshold or twenty per cent, whichever is higher.(3) In subsection (2) ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 together with paragraph 4 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023, as modified by paragraph 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is intended to ensure affordable housing is actually delivered where this is the subject of planning consent, and the proportion of social rent housing is at least 20 per cent.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation after that terrific debate on green spaces to speak to Amendment 122, together with Amendments 141 and 151, all of which address the issue of affordable housing delivery.
Amendment 122 introduces a free-standing new clause which provides for regulations to ensure that affordable housing gets delivered where it is a condition of planning consent, usually through a so-called Section 106 agreement. We are all only too familiar with the problem that affordable homes for local people are expected from new development but fail to materialise. With the excuse of viability, housebuilders back out of delivering all or most of the affordable homes that they promised. They say they have discovered site conditions they had not expected or have encountered problems with subcontractors or higher interest rates or building costs or something else, and now they may not be able to make a 20% profit from the development.
They insist that it is the affordable housing element that must take the hit. Despite affordable housing being a condition of planning consent, precious few such homes may appear. The price that the housebuilder pays for the land should reflect their obligations to provide affordable housing and related infrastructure. It should never be acceptable to claim: “We had to pay so much for the land that now we cannot honour our agreement to build the affordable homes”. The Government’s planning practice guidance explicitly states:
“Under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies”,
yet this continues to be exactly what happens.
The amendment recognises that the level of affordable housing in every development, the Section 106 agreement, is subject to complex negotiation between two unequal parties—the local planning department and the housebuilder. As a report from the National Audit Office set out in June of this year, there is a serious imbalance between these two, with local planning authorities being hopelessly under-resourced while large developers can employ expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down.
The Government, commendably, are finding ways of better resourcing local planning authorities. This amendment would add support for planners by cutting down on the imbalanced and interminable arguing over affordable housing numbers. The affordable housing element would become non-negotiable. Amendment 121 would empower the Secretary of State to ensure that developers deliver the affordable homes that were a condition of planning consent. The amendment would add a further detail by obliging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of the homes for social rent or the percentage that is set out in the local planning authority’s policy framework if that is higher. The definition of social rent housing is that used by the Regulator of Social Housing in its rent standard.
How important is this contribution by the house- builders to affordable housing? Over recent years, the obligations on the housebuilders have produced nearly half, 44% last year, of the total programme of affordable homes. However, according to the National Audit Office, the value of the contributions from developers for both infrastructure and affordable housing fell from £6.4 billion to £5.5 billion last year. We cannot afford for this vital programme of affordable homes, funded by developer contributions, to be depleted by housebuilders reneging on their planning obligations.
Amendment 122 keeps it simple. It dismisses the specious arguments about what is viable and what is profitable. It would require straightforward fulfilment of the planning obligations accepted by housebuilders, which have too often escaped their responsibilities and have reduced or scrapped the quota of social homes that they were obligated to deliver. It would introduce a baseline of 20% of new homes for social rent in all relevant developments. I know that the Minister recognises the problem which this amendment seeks to address. I hope that she will find it acceptable.
Amendments 141 and 151 are also in my name and again supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Carlile, whom I thank. These two amendments go together and back up my earlier amendment. While the earlier amendment is just about developer contributions to providing affordable homes, these two amendments relate to all developments that will be covered by the spatial development strategies outlined by the Bill. Amendment 141 expands on the Bill’s current wording, which stipulates that spatial development strategies can specify or describe the amount of affordable housing, as well as other kinds of housing. This amendment spells out that the affordable housing should be mostly for social rent rather than, for example, shared ownership or middle-market renting.
Amendment 151 defines social rent as in Amendment 122, stating that social rent is the accommodation rented according to the rent standard specified by the Regulator of Social Housing. This is the rent level that applies to most existing council and housing association properties. It is based on a measurement that combines earnings data with property values. It represents the form of affordable housing, which helps those on average incomes or less. Using the common definition that rents are only affordable if they absorb one-third or less of the incomes of the occupiers, the current arrangements are producing pathetically small numbers of new homes for those in the bottom half of the income distribution. If the 1.5 million new homes planned for the course of this Parliament were to contain a quantum of social rented homes similar to the current arrangements, then as little as 8% of all the new homes would be affordable to those on, or below, average incomes. This does not sound like a very fair distribution of all the new homes that we are planning to build.
Fortunately, the Government are determined to see more social rented housing created. This amendment chimes with that intention. The Government have stated that, of the 300,000 affordable homes a year to be funded by the spending review’s £39 billion for Homes England to provide its social and affordable homes programme, 180,000 homes—60% of the affordable homes—should be for social rent. If achieved, this would represent a significant rise in the proportion of homes that are genuinely affordable.
Amendments 141 and 142 would greatly improve the Government’s chances of delivering this outcome. Amendment 141 would establish that a majority of the affordable housing within each spatial development strategy must be for social rent, defined by Amendment 151. This requirement would cover affordable homes in the publicly subsidised housing programme, as well as those affordable homes that are built by the house- builders in fulfilment of their planning obligations.
The amendments accord with the Government’s ambitions and give greater relevance to the new spatial development strategies. They would ensure that a meaningful proportion of the 1.5 million new homes will be for those in that half of the population who cannot otherwise afford a decent home. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic to these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 137 and 171 and give wholehearted support to the amendments so eloquently and coherently proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which I and other noble Lords have signed.
It is interesting that this group of amendments demonstrates all too clearly the overwhelming need for many more homes for social rent. It is deeply troubling that the number of homes in that category being built has fallen significantly—despite the Government’s stated ambition to tackle the housing crisis and for a significant amount of those homes to be for social rent. We all know that social housing provides stability, dignity and opportunity for those who are in most need. Yet year after year we see promises outstripped by reality, leaving rising numbers of families trapped in temporary or unsuitable accommodation. Currently, there are 130,000 families, which have 169,000 children within them, in that accommodation. I regard it as a national scandal.
Following welcome funding announcements from the Government, the main issues genuinely now appear to be delivery and affordability, which are both deep and entrenched problems. In a small way, the amendments in this group seek to be part of the solution. Without urgent action on both fronts, all our aspirations remain little more than warm words while communities across the country continue to feel the harsh consequences of inaction.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 122 in this group, along with others that relate to the provision of social housing. This group and the next are of major interest to those of us who are concerned about housing provision.
There is not actually very much in the Bill itself about housing. If you look through the first few pages of the Bill, headed “contents”, the word housing appears nowhere. In the whole 21 pages of Chapter 2 on spatial development strategies, I found the word housing twice on page 73. That was it, apart from a reference to the definition of affordable housing on page 74. The amendments in this group are not actually amending anything in the Bill, they are all inserting additions after Clause 52. Apart from future debates about housing for the elderly and modern methods of construction, this group of amendments and the next will have to do much of the heavy lifting on housing provision.
Amendment 122, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, will hold the feet of developers to the fire when it comes to the provision of social housing under Section 106. We have heard debates in the past about ensuring that social housing does not miss out by being built out last, and the developer then pleading extenuating circumstances for so-called financial viability assessments. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, since nearly half of all affordable houses are now provided under Section 106, we simply must maximise this resource.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained what happens in practice. The developer will tend to build the affordable houses last in order to maximise the cash flow by selling the market houses first. Then, towards the end of the development, when the developer finds the sums do not quite add up, the last thing he wants to do is anything which impacts on the value of the market houses. He will not want to touch the green spaces, the playgrounds or the car parking, so he will try to squeeze out the affordable housing.
Research by the CPRE shows that developers and land promoters have used viability assessments to get out of building almost half the affordable houses required; in its sample, 18% was achieved instead of 34%. The system at the moment favours the big developers, which can overbid the smaller developer and then use sophisticated financial viability assessments to outwit the under-resourced local authorities.
More recently, we have had the opposite problem: developers providing social housing but there being no registered social landlord to take it over. I raised this before the recess, on 3 July, and the Minister kindly wrote to me on 9 July. She told me that the Government set up the Homes England clearing service last December, and we can judge the scale of the problem, in that 113 housebuilders and 114 local planning authorities registered. The Minister told me in that letter that “more action is needed from all parties to ensure Section 106 homes are built to a good quality, are marketed at a reasonable price, and are purchased quickly and efficiently by social housing providers”. Can the Minister tell me what that further action might be and what progress has been made? Last December, the HBF estimated that there were 17,000 affordable homes stalled due to a lack of registered providers in the market to buy the homes. How many are there now?
Amendment 141, to which I have added my name, refers to social rent housing. It is worth asking why we need social housing. The market can provide most of the essentials in life—food and clothing—but no country in the world has a market that has met housing need. Worldwide, social housing provides affordable homes for families and individuals. Looking at the more prosperous European countries, they have a higher proportion of social housing than we do. All Governments have supported the housing market in this country: by supporting home ownership, initially through mortgage interest tax relief and then Homebuy in 1999, the starter home initiative and Help to Buy, or by supporting social housing—which is what this amendment is about—through Section 106, housing association grants or the affordable homes programme.
We did try an alternative approach—a market approach—under Nicholas Ridley. He wanted to move local authority rents up to market rents and let housing benefit take the strain. Under that scenario, there would have been no social rents; it was an explicit shift from bricks and mortar subsidy to personal subsidies. I am happy to say that Margaret Thatcher removed me from the Government before the Housing Act 1988 was introduced, because the experiment simply did not work. It did not work because it meant an annual increase in rents, which was unpopular, and the price was paid in local elections; it had an impact on the retail prices index and so on public expenditure, so the Treasury was concerned; and it assumed that the DHSS, as it then was, would be happy to finance an ever- growing housing benefit bill, which it was not— I remember Tony Newton complaining that he was funding the housing programme. We have reverted, rightly in my mind, to the traditional method of providing rents below market rents, with capital subsidies, Section 106, or surpluses retained by social landlords.
I was struck by one sentence in the Shelter briefing for this debate:
“Today, social housing has lost its universal status as a home for everyone, becoming an overstretched ambulance service and relying on ageing infrastructure”.
Shelter is right. Nearly 60 years ago, when I first became a local councillor, if home ownership was beyond your reach, you put your name down for the council waiting list and, in due course, you would get an offer. Now, that is no longer the case: social housing is strictly targeted at those in the most pressing need under the provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, and local authorities are struggling even to meet those commitments, which will be accentuated as the asylum seekers are moved out of hotels.
It is the ambulance analogy—which is Shelter’s and not mine—that I focus on for a moment, at the risk of being controversial. The real ambulance takes you to a hospital and, when you are better, you are discharged. When the Shelter ambulance, to follow the analogy, takes you to social housing, and when, with the benefit of that housing, you put your life together again, you are not discharged, but there are still people in the Shelter ambulance. It raises the contentious issue of security of tenure for social housing and whether, given the pressure on social housing, there should be some incentives—I emphasise carrots, not sticks—to encourage those who have benefited to move on and to make way for someone who is now in the desperate circumstances that generated the original tenancy.
This is not to detract from the powerful case for more social housing made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Best, but it is to raise the question, given the changed circumstances over the last 60 years, of whether we need to have another look at lifelong security if we are to make the best use of the scarce resource that social housing is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I share the aspiration that we should build sufficient affordable housing in order to house those who need it. I do not propose to repeat what has been said in the three excellent speeches we have heard so far in this debate. I want to turn to a particular issue, with which I hope that the Minister who replies will agree.
One of the ways in which we ensure that affordable housing is built in sufficient numbers is to ensure that the contractual relationship between builders and the councils that give them planning permission is a fair one and does not give undue advantage to the contractors. It has not always been the case that that is so; indeed, there are very recent examples, and I will refer to one very major one.
Some years ago, one of the things I did in my legal life was act as a part-time chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, the UK’s anti-trust court. One of the cases on which I sat and gave judgment was a case in which a number of household-name builders had entered into cartel arrangements in order that it was ensured that one of them would win each contract. It was so endemic in the building system that an academic, who I will not name, from a respectable university, which I will not name, wrote a book on how to enter into these cartel arrangements. He did not do the builders much good, because the tribunal which I was chairing fined them a very large amount of money, each related to their world turnover.
They have not learned their lesson from that Competition Appeal Tribunal case. This year, a group of the largest housebuilders in the UK have agreed to a series of legally binding commitments to ensure that they are acting lawfully and to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. They have done that following an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA. I should say to your Lordships that the CMA took a very pragmatic view and did not make a finding that they had been cartelists. I will leave it to your Lordships’ judgment as to whether that was the case or not, under the parliamentary privilege that I have, by telling you what the housebuilders have agreed to.
They made the following commitments to the CMA. The first was not to share competitively sensitive information with competitors, specifically including the prices for which houses are to be sold. If you are a builder, you do not need to make an agreement with the CMA to know that you should not share competitively sensitive information in a competitive contract situation. They then agreed to support the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to produce guidance on information exchange for the housebuilding industry. Ditto what I said about the first commitment. They further agreed—I am very pleased that they did—to pay £100 million in aggregate to programmes supporting the construction of affordable housing in the UK. Somebody will have done a calculation of how much they had gained from their anti-competitive agreements, and I have no doubt that the £100 million was a conservative—with a small “c”—estimate of the gain that they had made. Then they decided, generously, to introduce enhanced in-house compliance measures and training programmes, no doubt to deal with corruption among individuals within the industry.
Given that case and the one I mentioned earlier, surely one of the most important things—I am sure that the Government will agree with this—is that we should be alive to the risks of corruption in the building industry, so that housing is built without giving the housebuilders money which they do not deserve and have not earned legitimately.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I have a meeting with them next week; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would like to join me.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for the invitation but, looking at the parliamentary programme for next week, I suspect that I am going to be here for about 11 hours a day.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to spending 11-hour days with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on important legislation that this House is considering.
I rise to speak to this because it is absolutely vital that we get going with the building of social housing. There are good examples of where we can be creative in considering this, but the underlying element of what has been put forward in speeches by noble Lords already is absolutely right. When a housing developer makes a commitment, this House, and this Parliament, have to strain every sinew to make sure that councils do not let them off the hook. It matters in terms of local communities and local plans. The whole essence of a large part of this Bill is that a lot of decisions are being removed from elected councillors by this Government. That is when confidence and trust in our local government starts to fade away: when promises made by developers—on housing and other issues, including health and other Section 106 issues—evaporate.
My noble friend Lord Markham has, in effect, set up a housing association in Ealing, being creative with how the financing of that can be done, to make sure of ongoing sustainable homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the fact that there has been a net change of just 700 homes when it comes to social rent. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham started to refer to the fact that registered social landlords were not taking up some of the homes that are being done. In the east of England, we have the social landlords Flagship pro-actively selling off social rent housing and not replacing it—certainly not locally—but potentially doing some aspects of that elsewhere, many miles away from where that social rented housing is being displaced.
On what my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said about lifetime tenancies, the law was of course changed so that councils should consider shorter-term tenancies, proactively considering the composition and demographics in that local community. Very few councils took that up, and I understand why to some extent, but, as has been pointed out, these are homes that people want to have but they are also precious uses of space. Thinking of the next group, there is a good intention to have design for lifetime. Some other, perhaps cruder, economic policies have come through in the past that have not always been welcomed. But I suggest that the Minister looks back at policy from just a few years ago with the two-pronged “benefits to bricks” approach.
The Government today are spending at least at least £35 billion a year on paying rent through the benefits system. We constantly need to think about where resources are being deployed. While recognising that we desperately need more homes—and we are coming on to land banking later—let us make the most of every single home that we already have today, including social housing, and consider what we can do to hold on to them. Apart from that, I will always continue to defend the right to buy.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, thus far in this debate, we have been thinking in terms of solving the problems that we are discussing by building more houses, but I would like to raise a point that I will describe in a little more detail in a moment: building more houses is, I think, quite the wrong way of approaching the problem.
I am talking, of course, about the national parks and areas of nationally important landscape. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to his time in local government 60 years ago. I cannot go quite so far back down memory lane, but I was involved in the Lake District Special Planning Board 40 years ago. The problem we had then is a problem that still exists—indeed, in a more exacerbated form—despite our efforts to try to address it. The problem was that people who lived and worked in this community were unable to find any accommodation as their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents had before them.
It is not simply a matter of social implications. The kind of people who were, and still are, finding it very hard to find accommodation in—or even, in many instances, quite close to—these kinds of important landscape areas are the very people who are essential for looking after it properly. There is a real problem. If we do not resolve the difficulty in some sensible way, there will be even more problems.
Let me illustrate this. In the hamlet of Chapel Stile, up Langdale—which, as many of your Lordships will know, is one of the most admired, visited and esteemed parts of Britain’s premier national park—approximately 80% of the housing stock is second homes. The one thing you must not do to resolve the problem of housing up Langdale is to build more and more houses, because that would completely destroy the very rationale for the place being so special.
Against this background, I think it important that this relatively niche problem—I use those words advisedly but not disparagingly—is looked at carefully, because it does not lend itself to many of the kinds of solutions that have been canvassed in the context of the problems elsewhere in the country. We do not need more housing stock in the Lake District. What we want is more of the housing stock that exists to be occupied and used as the basis for looking after the national park itself. That in turn is in the interests of everybody else who comes to it and enjoys it, and the rest of the country.
It is not a question of social housing or affordable homes. We have to be much more imaginative about the way we do it. We have to find a way of taking quite a bit of the existing housing stock out of the open market. In my view, you would probably have to use planning covenants to put it into a restricted local marketplace where local people could afford to buy homes, or lease them, and, in turn, commit their activities to looking after the area in question.
I have raised this point on a number of occasions over the years and have never got anywhere with it at all. I know perfectly well why: it will cost quite a bit of money. But these places matter. Widespread degradation through building is something that I do not think any of us condone. Some of your Lordships may have seen in the Sunday papers a description of what the Egyptian Government are proposing to do at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, which, in my view, is totally outrageous and a monstrous way to treat a world heritage site.
Many bits of the rural economy feel very let down by housing policy, because it is not addressing the particular problems that they are facing. Many of the solutions that have been canvassed I have no trouble with at all, but they are essentially—not entirely, but essentially—for urban areas. There are different issues and problems in rural areas. As I said, many people there feel let down, and you can see from recent opinion polling that many of them are pretty disillusioned with the existing political classes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I want to add a few points to what I think has been a good and interesting debate. I remind the Committee of my registered interests as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. Much as I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I will not follow his track. I will revert to places where there is a very high demand for housing and a serious problem of affordability for housing. I want to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular, and to ask him a question, if he has a moment to respond. It seems to me that he is looking to target the social rent sector by reference to the definition that he includes—not the definition for social housing in the Bill. He effectively said: social rent under Section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act but not Section 70 of that Act, which relates to low-cost home ownership. The targets he refers to would have the effect of squeezing the availability of support for low-cost home ownership. I wonder if that is his intention, because it is not one that I would be wholly supportive of.
However, I do support the delivery of affordable housing. He mentioned the National Audit Office report from June this year and I want to follow up on two or three points. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and I have both asked questions about the take-up of contracts for affordable housing under Section 106 obligations entered into by developers. In addition to what he asked, the National Audit Office said that it felt that the Homes England clearing scheme should become permanent. Since it published its report in June, the Government have provided a substantial and welcome increase in the affordable homes programme. The question is: to what extent is Homes England, through the affordable homes programme, going to be empowered to use those resources to take up those contracts, even if it does not go on to own the homes itself but rather acts as a clearing house by taking up those contracts and then making them available to registered providers who can access the affordable homes programme?
In addition, I will mention two things. The National Audit Office said that it wished the Government would proceed with issuing financial viability guidance. We are going to talk later in the Bill about further issues relating to viability guidance. I know my Front Bench colleagues share my view on this. In order to deliver more housing, there are powers available to the Government that need to be used quickly. Part of that is the issuance of guidance that will allow procedures like Section 106 to make progress. The Government have powers to reform Section 106 and the community infrastructure levy and they have not done so. They also have the power to issue new guidance relating to financial viability and they have not done so. So can the Minister, who remembers our debates on these things in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, tell us when progress will be made?
The final point is about Section 106 funding. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that developers provided less last year by way of Section 106. I think that is principally because they provided less housing, so it is a simple consequence. If we can deliver more market housing, we should be able to deliver more by way of resources for the delivery of affordable housing. I think the noble Lord and the Committee will not criticise developers who feel somewhat unhappy. The National Audit Office reported that last year there was £8 billion in unspent Section 106 contributions. This is overwhelmingly for infrastructure that has not been delivered, but quite rightly the National Audit Office thinks it not helpful for local authorities to be placing obligations on developers—taking substantial resources, which sometimes can imperil the viability of a project—and then not delivering the infrastructure that is committed. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, quite accurately said, it is a contract, in effect, between developers and local authorities. Sometimes developers let down local authorities, but sometimes local authorities let down developers.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
After such an expert series of speeches on this, I hesitate to rise, but I feel compelled to support the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others who have introduced a critical series of amendments and raised a challenge to current practice. As somebody who has had a long-standing association with Exmoor National Park, I fully understand and recognise what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, but I suspect that we are dealing with the process and proceeds of bulk housing rather than the situation that he refers to, important though that is.
I have in the past had to wrestle with development appraisals and I recognise the points that noble Lords have made about that. The system is rather opaque. You can variously tweak the process to decide on the profitability, on your relationship with your subcontractors, on what you are prepared to concede by way of Section 106 obligations, and on what you are prepared to pay for the land—and all of these in one model. So the model is complex and, unless one is familiar with the algorithms that stand behind it, it is very difficult for local authorities to find their way through that.
We have heard that affordable housing is funded out of the development of market housing. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the question arises as to what we mean by “affordable”, since 80% of the market price in the south and south-east of the country, for instance, is still totally unaffordable to anybody with limited means, particularly if it is pegged to the selling price of market housing, which of itself often carries a premium as a result of marketing processes. That premium is instantly lost as soon as the house is second hand and on the resale market. Often, market prices do not catch up with that premium on the second-hand market for some years. Sometimes it is quite a long time. For somebody of limited means in need of a home, this is a matter not of voluntary choice but of what is economically possible and of their own priority as a candidate for an affordable home, based on the housing need and the length of the waiting list. For many people, this is something of a lottery.
The affordable housing component of a residential development scheme is subject to this viability, the core financial ingredients of which are largely owned by and the intellectual property of the developer. Bearing in mind what I have said about the general complexity of the whole process, that adds to the problems that we are dealing with. Developers are a breed on which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has previously expressed some quite trenchant views, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has rather spectacularly reinforced those this evening. I have no remit to necessarily speak up for housebuilders. Some of them are clearly thoroughly exploitative, but I do not think that all of them are. I feel certain that there are some who are decent, honest and disposed to be transparent as far as they are able, but my professional work certainly has revealed that there is a great deal of opacity to the whole process.
The nature of the affordability offering ranges from what in developer terms might be regarded as the optimal—namely, a shared ownership, because of course it releases a sum of money for the development through affordable rent—and what might be regarded as the least profitable bit, social rent, which is often driven by accountancy processes and profit motives. Social rent components thus inevitably get seriously squeezed. The whole process of affordable housing may get further eroded by being fitted out to a lower standard than market housing. I will leave that to one side, but it gives a bit of an insight into how much cheeseparing goes on in the whole process and how many adjustments might be made before the final product comes out.
I acknowledge that part of the problem may go back to the rolled-up costs of land acquisition and the expectations of the parties under the original sale of land, although I venture to suggest that some of the developer’s profit, taken in the round, in many cases substantially exceeds the sum paid to the original landowner, and part of that is rolled-up cost, risk, finance and all sorts of other things that are going on at the same time. It is also a fact that satisfying this housing need depends on the perceived profit from the development at any given time. The ability of developers to defer starts or go slow on a site, depending on market conditions, adds to the problem of congestion in terms of providing affordability, and those in critical need of something genuinely affordable in rent are effectively seriously compromised.
Mention has been made by other noble Lords of shared ownership; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who a week or so ago mentioned shared-ownership problems. My mailbag is often punctuated with people who are unable to get round the resale of their properties because there may be a pre-emption problem or they have to get consent from their registered provider, for example—and then circumstances change, the whole thing goes back into the melting pot and they have to start all over again. For owners who are trapped in such difficult-to-shift situations—even without fire safety remediation problems, which is another thing—if that is what ownership looks like, we should be prepared for people to start switching off, because it is not good enough if you are offering that as a home-ownership approach.
As another aside, I have recently heard it said that house prices are driven by the availability of credit, not the inherent value of the product. If so, there just has to be a better way of dealing with that without choking off land supply, and I think it starts with shortening timescales, derisking the current protracted processes, making planning more cost efficient, less contentious and less uncertain—and probably with a not-for-profit construction model. Protracted timescales allow for far too much wriggle room and reconfiguring of the offering that is made, and they give too much space for poor practices to take root.
I have tried to work out how such a model would be achieved—possibly through community interest structures in which local need and desire would come a long way in front of imposed bulk market housing—but I am not there yet. It raises questions too about clustering of social housing versus pepperpotting, and about building the sort of inspirational developments that deliver best quality rather than having some sort of stigma attached to them because of the nature of what is produced. We in this country have in the past succeeded spectacularly with schemes; some of the great industrialists produced wonderful developments for their workforce that were really well thought out. We ought to be able to do the same sort of thing for those in critical need of social housing.
My view on this is that, if one is concerned about the attitude of landowners, maybe it is time to start asking whether getting maximum price at some uncertain point in the future would not be offset by having a greater certainty of outcomes and transparency, and being able to plan for that over a timescale might be appropriate. With that, I will sit down, but that may warrant looking at further.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group raise important questions about the definition of affordable housing and how far the Government’s current proposals will deliver against the need that is obviously widely recognised. The term itself is much used yet too often detached from the realities faced by families across the country. These amendments draw attention to the gap that can arise between policy definition and practical affordability, and they raise the question of how local circumstances are to be given proper weight.
In addition, there is the matter of delivery, as we have heard. What is the expected scale of provision for social rent in the year ahead, and how does that compare with the assessed levels of need? Every independent analyst points to social rent as the tenure under the greatest pressure. The amendments, in their different ways, put that issue squarely before the House and before Ministers.
We welcome the affordable housing 10-year plan and the money that has been invested in it, but the money is back-loaded into future government spending reviews, so it is by no means certain when we will get it. That money is required now.
As we have heard, we have also had the precedent of earlier legislation, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, in which Parliament accepted the principle that local plans must take account of housing need. That is not just one tenure of housing but all tenures, whether private, social, affordable, housing for young people or for older people. Under that Act, local authorities are required to look at the needs in their area and to have plans to deliver those housing tenures. Those figures should be subject to scrutiny by local communities through the consultation for the local plan. How does the Bill intend to carry that principle forward? Is it going to enact that part of the levelling-up Act, or does it have other plans of its own?
The amendments collectively press for clarity, accountability and ambition on affordable housing delivery. We need to deliver the homes people need, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to explain what steps the Government are taking to deliver that number of affordable and social rented homes over this Parliament. I hardly need remind your Lordships’ House that the Government are also well behind in the delivery of their manifesto commitment to provide the 1.5 million homes that we all urgently need.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on social and affordable housing. As Members of this House will know, I personally and the Government are very supportive of the intent of the amendments in this group, which is to increase the delivery of affordable and social housing. Noble Lords will already be aware that this Government have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent. As other Peers have indicated, we allocated £39 billion over the course of this Parliament to social and affordable housing, the biggest amount for generations, and we have indicated that 60% of that should be for social housing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke powerfully about the crisis we faced when we came into office and frankly—and I have said it before—169,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation is a shameful record. We will tackle that. We are working on it immediately and doing everything we can to address it. The investment made at the Spring Statement, which was the £39 billion, follows the £800 million new in-year funding which has been made available for the affordable homes programme 2021 to 2026 that will support the delivery of up to 7,800 new homes, more than half of them social rent homes. That is significantly up on the £700 million that was mentioned.
Furthermore, we have announced changes to allow councils to retain 100% of receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This is not a one-off. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, spoke about the net gain in housing and there are other issues we need to address, including right to buy. We recently consulted on wider reforms to right to buy; that consultation has closed. We also consulted on a long-term rent settlement that would allow rents to increase above inflation each year for five years from 2026. That consultation has closed, and we are looking at responses from the sector to deal with that. It is our intention to give long-term rent settlements so that registered providers can have the certainty they need to invest in housing.
Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to set out a minimum proportion of social rent provision on new developments and require any affordable housing requirements to be fully implemented on them. I thank the noble Lord, as ever, for being such a passionate advocate for affordable housing. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned the definition of affordable homes. It is now specific in the NPPF that authorities should separately set out social housing need in their local plan and not just use that broad term of “affordable housing”, which was never very satisfactory.
The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we need to significantly increase the number of affordable homes built each year, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We will continue to take steps to deliver a planning system that supports this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned that the target has not yet been achieved. We need to lay the foundations for this. We need the funding that we have put in to deliver social housing. We also need this planning Bill to go through to free up the planning system so that we move it forward quickly. I know our new Secretary of State will be very focused on that: I have already spoken to him today about it.
We will continue to take the steps we need to deliver the planning system that supports this, but I do not believe this amendment goes quite in the direction that we need to go. Our revised National Planning Policy Framework provides greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit particular housing needs. The framework makes it clear that local authorities should, when producing their local plan, assess the need for affordable housing and homes for social rent and then plan to meet those needs. This includes setting out the amount and type of affordable housing that should be secured on new developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned viability guidance. We are reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiation only where that is genuinely necessary. We will produce this guidance later this year, so I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords. We must also acknowledge that there are times where flexibility is necessary to ensure sites can commence when there is a change in circumstances, such as a change in the economic situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the CMA report which resulted in a fine of £100 million to the major developers. We need to carefully consider—and we have talked about it before in your Lordships’ House—how to make sure that that does not just get recirculated to develop further profits for the same developers that caused the problem in the first place; that is, those that were fined. We have already allocated a package of support for SME builders and I hope the very significant sum allocated in the affordable homes programme and other funds that may come forward will help to support local jobs, training, apprenticeships, supply chains and those SME builders. It is very important that we all focus on that as well.
Consequently, we must aim to balance strengthening the developer contribution system with retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place but only where it is genuinely justified. Planning obligations entered into under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are legally binding and enforceable. A local planning authority may take enforcement action against any breach of a planning obligation contained within a Section 106 agreement, including any breach of the affordable housing commitment. We will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year.
Amendments 141, 150A and 151, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, seek to ensure that a majority of any affordable housing specified or described by a strategic planning authority in its spatial development strategy is housing for social rent as defined in paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023. The wording of the Bill gives strategic planning authorities the flexibility to plan for a broad range of affordable housing types, allowing them to respond to the specific needs of their areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rightly mentioned nationally important landscapes. In this new planning Bill, they retain their very strong protections. We are very interested in—and have talked a lot about—the rural exception sites and, where housing is necessary, working with local areas to determine where that housing should go and potentially have local lettings plans to go with them. The Government have already put forward some strong measures, particularly on empty homes but also on second homes in terms of council tax measures and so on, that can be taken.
Insisting that spatial development strategies must specify or describe a certain amount of one type of affordable housing could prevent authorities including other important forms of affordable housing when setting out the amount or distribution of such housing that they consider to be strategically important to their area. This could significantly reduce the variety and volume of affordable housing delivered.
I turn now to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This would require a spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to meet a specific target for new social homes each year. New Section 12D(5)(b) already enables a spatial development strategy to outline an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other type of housing—social housing, certainly—that the authority deems strategically important for its area.
Amendment 171 asks the Government to commit to update guidance in relation to affordable housing. I am in full agreement that we have to ensure affordable housing is genuinely affordable to local people and addresses local needs. That is why we have made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit housing need in their areas. In addition, we have committed that new investment to succeed the current affordable homes programme will have a particular focus on delivering social rent—that is the 60% I referred to earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to net new homes. Delivery of new homes is only one element of that; so are changes to right-to-buy provisions which the Government have already outlined. Planning policy already supports many of the aims of this amendment, requiring local planning authorities to assess the range of affordable housing needs in their area and set out the types of affordable housing to be prioritised.
On a couple of other points, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, reminded us that there are economic benefits to providing social housing. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Benefits to Bricks campaign. It is very important as we look to reduce the benefits bill that that £30 billion—or £35 billion, as I think she cited—often used to house someone in expensive accommodation that does not meet their needs, is much better focused on delivering social housing where we can ensure that it meets the needs of those who live there.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the amendments on shared ownership from the noble Lord, Lord Young. They are part of the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we have had very useful meetings with the noble Lord. No doubt that will come back to us when the Bill comes back from ping-pong. We have already made a clear commitment to consider further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision-making in 2025. It is as part of these changes that the content and timing of further updates to guidance are best considered. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, this has been another really good debate; I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, supported the amendment and made the point that, after the deduction of the social rented homes we lose each year, the net increase of social rented homes—the most important and in-demand of all forms of social and affordable housing—is down to around 700 each year, given that right to buy and other mechanisms see a loss of social renting, making the case even more desperate.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, whose support I have relished over so many years, pointed out that the CPRE had sampled a range of schemes and discovered that, instead of the 34% affordable housing that was expected from those developments, only 18% actually emerged. This is the developers outwitting the planners. Funnily enough, 34% is, I think, the percentage of affordable homes in Poundbury, where they have not reduced the number in subsequent negotiations but maintained the figure they started with, thank goodness. None the less, that is a demonstration of the homes we are currently losing, and which we so desperately need.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, talking about housing benefit taking the strain and the policy that went behind that, and how he now does not hold to the view that that is the way to do it—for the rent to be a market rent and for benefit to take the strain. Better to produce social housing with a grant up front and have a lower housing benefit bill for the years to come, with all the other advantages that go with that.
The noble Lord’s points on security of tenure were taken up by one or two others. Amendment 152, which is coming up later, is all about people moving from underoccupied council and housing association homes into something more suitable, accessible and manageable for them, while freeing up a social rented property. That may to some extent satisfy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned the anti-competitive actions and legal cases he has been involved with—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
May I respectfully ask the noble Lord to move on to deciding whether he will withdraw his amendment?
Lord Best (CB)
There is eager anticipation as to whether I will withdraw the amendment. Suffice it to say, the support around the Committee has been almost complete, and I am deeply grateful for it. The Minister mentioned the many good things the Government are doing, but I fear that leaving it to local authorities to decide, when there is such an unequal tussle between them and those who wish to reduce the amount of affordable and social rented housing, is not going to work. It has not worked so far, and we may need to return to this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before we move on to the next group, I just want to make a quick statement. We have a large number of groups to get through this evening. While this is Committee, I remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companion, in paragraph 8.79A, on speeches at amending stages:
“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.
While there have been many important contributions from all sides of the House, parts of our debates this afternoon have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I ask noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are brief and relevant to the topic under discussion.
Amendment 123
Lord Crisp
“Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of related amendments, which are all concerned with how planning in general and housing in particular can play a positive role in promoting mental, physical and social health and well-being, building what I would describe as a healthy and health-creating society.
The Minister will recognise some of the amendments in this group, which are very similar to ones that the now Government supported so effectively in opposition when I tabled them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I believe we even won a vote. While I hope she will support them, I suspect that she will not, and I understand that the Government have to choose. However, I hope that this debate will provide the Minister with more ammunition to argue for change within government. There are very good and powerful arguments behind the amendments in this group that I know will be set out by noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew for adding their names to my amendments. I also thank Hugh Ellis and Rosalie Callway of the TCPA for their invaluable advice and support.
Before turning to my own amendments, I add my support to the amendments on sport and physical activity from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. They powerfully make the point about the importance of both. It is not just the activity involved that is important for health and well-being, but the social aspects it embodies.
Two of the amendments in this group, Amendment 132 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 185D from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, set out definitions of the purpose of planning. It is very important that we remember what this is all about: why planning is necessary. Both these definitions of planning surely include ensuring the health and well-being of the population and not damaging it. I am also delighted to support Amendment 185SA from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on a code of practice for design. This, as will be apparent in what I go on to say, is very important.
There are two overlapping arguments for my amendments. I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, but I will touch on some of the points: the evidence from health research—the straightforward health arguments, if you like—and what I will call the evidence of experience, the salutary tales from recent history. Poorly planned neighbourhoods with poor amenities and badly designed homes with little or no access to nature, inadequate insulation of heat or against noise, and that are not secure or well-heated in winter or cool enough in summer, are a recipe for personal and societal stress and can be directly linked to risks of mental and physical illness and disease. Stress itself is implicated in increased inflammation and linked to many long-term conditions, from heart disease and diabetes to depression and anxiety. It is also very clear that the Minister’s colleagues in the Department of Health understand this very well. In the new NHS plan, there is reference to the importance of healthy neighbourhoods, and that is what all these amendments are designed to achieve.
Turning to the evidence from experience, the current housing system is too often failing to promote people’s physical, mental and social health, especially in the most deprived areas. Poor housing costs wider society at least £18.5 billion a year through poor educational achievement, loss of productivity and on-costs to health and care services, including £1.4 billion a year to the NHS.
Across the country, too many homes are being built that are poor quality, poorly located and unaffordable. A recent survey showed that a third of people across all sectors described their new homes as poor quality. Permitted development rights have only made that worse.
I have said all the problems, but it is also very clear, on the positive side, that well-designed safe homes with access to facilities provide part of the foundation for successful and prosperous lives. Prosperity and the ambition for sustainable growth go hand in hand with healthy, safe environments. Existing guidance and advice have not ensured the development of good housing and health-promoting neighbourhoods. There is no evidence that other non-mandatory guidance will help. That is, of course, why I am promoting these amendments.
Anyone who has played any role in government will know that, when setting out these sorts of regulations or guidance to authorities, some of them follow it very well and some do not. If this is all to be contained in what is in essence guidance, as the Minister has already mentioned, how will the Government deal with the people who do not follow the guidance in place? I entirely recognise that we need more homes, and I would also have referred to the 159,000 children that the Minister referred to as living in temporary accommodation at the moment, which is an appalling situation.
Amendment 123 says that any national or local plan or strategy for development must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of people. This reunites planning and health— the two were once inseparable in government and policy—and it takes account of the vital role that planning has in improving health and well-being.
Amendment 185SF, according to the Member’s explanatory statement,
“is based on Clause 43 of the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill which places a duty on strategic authorities on health promotion and health inequalities. It uses the same language but replaces strategic authorities with local planning authorities. The effect of this amendment is to place a duty on planning authorities to promote health improvement and health inequalities”.
The obvious question—and I am particularly interested in the answer—is: if it is appropriate for the top-tier authority to have regard to that, why is it not for the planning authority? Is the higher-level authority simply irrelevant, and are the words in the other Bill just words without any follow-through into planning itself?
My Amendments 189, 191 and 193 place similar duties on development corporations. They already have, in this Bill, duties on sustainable development and climate change and, I would add, the positive promotion of the physical, mental and social health of the residents in their areas by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods. These three elements —sustainable development, climate change and health improvement—fit very naturally together, as earlier debates today have shown, and actions to address one tend to reinforce the others.
My final two amendments, which are very familiar, are about healthy homes and neighbourhoods. Amendment 226 places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the health and well-being of the people in England and healthy homes and neighbourhoods. Amendment 351 provides a schedule describing that. This means dealing with all the health issues that I mentioned earlier on this group of amendments.
The current arrangements have not worked, and if not this regulatory framework—which I am not wedded to the detail of—what are the Government going to put in place? If the Government have the ambition to create decent homes and developments, which I think they do, they need some levers in place. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to three amendments in my name, but first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his generous comments with regard to the amendments that I tabled. I completely echo what he said in reverse: I am fully supportive of what he has just put before the Committee.
During the last sitting of the Committee, I spoke to a series of amendments on the importance of physical activity and well-being in the context of planning law, and I now rise to speak to Amendments 138A, 185SC and 185SD. In so doing I thank ukactive, a not-for-profit profit organisation that represents and supports the UK’s physical activity sector. I thank it for its consistent high-quality work on the subject in the interests of its members and the wider world of sport, recreation and physical activity, for which it is widely renowned.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Moynihan, who have very much set out the case for other amendments in this group. It is worth focusing on how we need to debate, consider and act on the parlous state of health in the UK and the significant contribution and terrible impact on people’s health that the built environment, the state of our housing and streets, and the way in which people are forced to live, is having. It is not the way that I would do it but, if nothing else, we should consider the economic impacts of that ill health.
I will focus on the three amendments in this group that I have tabled. They are fairly diverse; two of them are specific and one is a much more general purpose on adverts, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, previewed. Amendment 124 is about the display of advertisements. It would amend Section 220(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, it allows the regulation of public advertisements for amenity or public safety reasons. The amendment would add environmental impact and public health as reasons for which advertising can be regulated. Noble Lords should think about how, when they were coming into the House today or when they are going home tonight, they are bombarded with advertisements for gambling companies, junk food and polluting substances. The odds are that there are a lot of them, and this is having a negative impact on public health. Many Members of your Lordships’ House are focusing on how out-of-control gambling is a public health issue in our country.
I pay tribute to the campaign group Adfree Cities, the inspiration for the amendment, which wants a complete ban on all outdoor corporate advertising. As one of its campaigners said, these ads are in a public space without any consultation about what is being shown on them. They cause light pollution—often these days they are digital—and they are for things that people cannot afford or do not need. The fact is that advertising is designed to make you miserable and suggests that you should spend some money to fix that misery.
This is not just the dreaming up of some new idea. To go back to 2006, São Paulo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere, banned all outdoor advertising. Under its clean city law, more than 15,000 billboards were removed, along with 300,000 store signs considered too large. Grenoble in 2014 said that it was not going to have digital advertising and that it would take advertising off its streets altogether. Amsterdam banned adverts for petrol and diesel cars and air travel, something that we have seen happen increasingly with local governments—with Bristol City Council, and Norwich is exploring it, as well as Sheffield and Edinburgh. That is protecting people and the public spaces that they have to be in.
In thinking about the public health impacts of this, Dr Nathan Critchlow from the Institute for Social Marketing and Health at the University of Stirling said:
“There is consistent evidence that exposure to marketing for unhealthy commodities—for example advertising for alcohol or food and drinks high in fat, salt, or sugar—is associated with consumption, including among … young people”.
This is being pushed to people and their health is suffering as a result. Many people will be familiar with the ban from Transport for London on unhealthy food advertising, which a study found prevented almost 100,000 obesity cases.
We can think of the positives instead of just the negatives. What if, in those spaces, we had community arts. One thing that our cities, towns and villages lack is more community arts, such as murals and local projects —or indeed, let us have some more trees. Would not that be nice?
It is worth saying that this is very much a public health issue. Adfree Cities found that four in five outdoor billboard advertisements are in the poorest half of England and Wales. They are actually increasing inequality, so we need something different there.
Amendment 132 deals with something very different. Noble Lords are used to debating purpose clauses. Very often, when we start to debate a Bill, someone puts an amendment down for a purpose clause. This amendment is about all planning functions. What is the purpose of planning? What are we trying to achieve? We have a lot of piecemeal provision in different legislation and different places, but why not say, as an overarching principle, what planning is for?
This is an amendment that I picked up from my honourable friend Ellie Chowns in the other place, and it was backed by the other Green MPs there. This is our attempt at suggesting a way of saying what planning is for. I am very happy to debate the detail, but it is to
“manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest”.
To spell that out a bit more, it
“addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations”.
The phrase “future generations” is one that many noble Lords will possibly recall from a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, brought forward some Sessions back—I have forgotten how many—copying the model of the future generations Act in Wales, which says that we cannot just govern for the moment. We know that our democratic system has a real problem with short-term thinking, and this would be a way of introducing the idea that we have to think about our impacts on future generations. It ultimately draws on the very well-known law of seven generations. That comes from the great law of the Iroquois, also known as the Haudenosaunee, which says that you should make every decision on the basis of what impact it will have in seven generations’ time. It is about thinking about the future and leaving this place better than we found it.
The amendment refers to the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act 2021. I can predict that the Minister will say that the Government are bound by these Acts, but the amendment explicitly lays down that planning considerations have to take account of those Acts. It also says that the processes have to be “open, accessible and efficient”.
Finally, I come to Amendment 227, which brings me to ground on which noble Lords will have heard me speak many times. I will cross-reference amendments that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others brought to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill addressing concerns about the poisons and threats to health contained in school uniforms. This is an amendment to look explicitly at the threats to health from new buildings.
Noble Lords are probably aware that PFAS, the forever chemicals, are in many substances that are part of the fabric of buildings. There is an increasing understanding that there is a build-up of these chemicals—there is a reason why they are called “forever chemicals”—because we are all being exposed to them from our clothing and in our buildings and food. They are building up and up, and our bodies cannot get rid of them and our environment cannot get rid of them.
Again, this is a very simple review amendment. I cannot write an amendment that deals with all these issues for the Government now, but we are on a poisoned planet and we are living in poisoned buildings and this identifies some of the issues—the PFAS, the plastics—and it also very explicitly draws attention to something that many campaigners reach out to me regularly about: artificial turf. We were talking in an earlier group about how we need more green spaces, more natural environments, healthy soils. The absolute opposite of that is taking a piece of ground and covering it in plastic, because that is what artificial turf is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 185SA. I have put my name to a number of other amendments; I support those and welcome the speech made by my noble friend Lord Crisp. He referred to this as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and I should say of my noble kinswoman that 48 hours and about 31 minutes ago, she was asked to go on the Government Front Bench and by the time we got here yesterday morning, it was too late to remove her name from the amendment in the conventional way. But what I have learned in those 48 hours and now 32 minutes is that if at home you say, “Yes, Minister” often enough, you can get your own way much more than you used to.
My intellectual inspiration for this amendment comes in fact from a man, a wonderful friend, David Levitt OBE, who is also my father-in-law. He is a very distinguished architect who, recently, in his 90th year, was given a lifetime award by the Architects’ Journal for his service to social housing, and I pay tribute to his work. I know from my time as a barrister and part-time judge and as an MP how inadequate housing—the lack of a decent home in which to live—blights the lives of all too many of our fellow citizens, and all too frequently plays a large part in their coming before the courts, so to me, decent housing is essential to the reduction of crime, especially among adults. In four words: “Good housing brings justice”, and this amendment is designed to achieve that on a large scale.
What is striking about this otherwise inspiring Bill is that it says little about the design—the architectural design—of the 1.5 million homes that the Government are going to build. I think we all agree that nobody wants to build badly. National planning policy already makes it clear that poor-quality design should not be allowed. Yet the general quality and design standard of much volume housebuilding in this country continues to be poor. I spoke earlier about financial irregularities, but it is not just that; it is the way in which the thinking about building takes place that leads to poor design. Not only does that affect the people inhabiting the houses, it contributes to local dissatisfaction with local government and opposition to further development. So, while there is widespread support for streamlining our slow and expensive planning processes—words I use cautiously with the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in the Chamber—there are legitimate concerns about the quality of new development if existing checks and standards are weakened.
There is widespread disquiet about whether the housebuilding industry has the ability or the incentives to make the change needed to deliver both the quantity and the quality of homes that are required. If it does have the ability, is it willing to make that change? The problem lies not with national planning policy, which is pretty clear. The fact that the guidance is currently under revision demonstrates ongoing commitment by the Government to achieving good design. In my view, the difficulty lies at local level. As a result of the erosion of skills over time, inadequate training, which has been discussed earlier, and pressure on budgets, few planning authorities have sufficiently strong policies and processes to allow them to require effective change confident in the knowledge that they will be able successfully to resist planning appeals.
Without enforceable design standards, local authorities have no firm policy footing to reject inadequate schemes, so such developments are frequently approved on the basis that they meet housing needs. Thus, an all too familiar scenario is that outline planning permission is sought and granted on the basis of some attractive early visual impressions, but where all the important design matters are reserved and thus the images produced in fact have no contractual force. Because of national housing targets, councils feel under pressure to approve outline permission. The site is typically then sold to a housebuilder and later the reserved matters submission proposes a generic design based on standard house types on a typology that has nothing to do with local circumstances and places too much emphasis on roads and cars and too little on people and their needs.
What we are trying to achieve is that if somebody lives in new-built social housing, they will say in the years to come, “I come from such and such a place”, and they will try to live there for as much of their life as is economically possible. When the final scheme looks nothing like what was promised, many residents and councillors feel misled, and this leads to a built-in resistance to future applications. To allow this situation to continue would, I suggest, be a betrayal of the excellent vision which has led to the promotion of the Bill.
The good news, as this amendment reveals, is that no radical change is needed. The tools already exist within the existing planning system. All we are proposing is basically a tweak, an adaptation which will set the threshold for good-quality design and will give the already excellent national standards more traction at local level. Doing this will embed consistency and predictability, which will help local authorities, the community, developers and landowners. Consistency and predictability will simplify and thus speed up the planning process and reduce the need for appeals. Thus, the quid pro quo for housebuilders is that those which comply will get their planning permission much more quickly and will therefore be able to maximise their profits by building well within the permitted period.
Simply, what this amendment proposes is a code of practice which requires a set of templates incorporating core design standards. If these are given greater weight through the National Planning Policy Framework, that will make it easy for local authorities to apply the principles at local level. This amendment has been developed with a team of leading architects and planners whose publication, Placemaking Not Plotting, will probably be published tomorrow—I have actually seen a draft of it during the debate.
Once these core quality standards are embedded at local level, local authorities should require compliance with them at the earliest practical stage in the planning process and ensure that they are not left to the reserved matters stage. Clear, predictable and measurable design requirements would enable officers to sign off significant components of planning applications, leaving much-streamlined areas which would then be the subject of proper democratic debate and decision-making in the council chamber—proper local accountability but much more quickly and efficiently. That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would love in his council chamber in south Norfolk, and he would have good cause to speak of it proudly in this Committee if so he wished.
So enacting a code of practice would allow applications which demonstrate compliance with the standards to be processed speedily within the current system. The promise of speedy approvals will provide an incentive for housebuilders to incorporate these measurable standards in their application.
The aim of this amendment is to find a practical way to use the best of architecture to provide the best in housing design quickly and efficiently. I hope that this approach will appeal to the Minister, who has such long experience of local government and the planning process and has demonstrated extraordinary understanding of it to us in the Chamber in recent days. I observe that this amendment is one of several related to design and quality, and I urge Ministers at least to include the basis of our amendment as part of the planning procedures at local government level to follow this Bill.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, concerning the purpose of planning. To my mind, there would be some advantage in following the precedent in Scotland, where a similar purpose clause exists in its planning legislation. It would provide a guiding light to remind everybody involved in the planning system what planning is for and why we are doing all this.
There are two advantages in practice to this. First, it would remind those responsible for planning decision-making that that is not only about those who shout loudest, who very often tend to be the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority who may wish to live in an area, and work in the area, but cannot find or afford a home there. It would provide a daily reminder that planning is about long-term public interest and not short-term expediency. For reasons I outlined in a previous debate, it would—in combination with the proposal for a statutory chief planning officer that was discussed in the debate on my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment—buttress the independence of professional planning officers from undue influence. That would be all the more important in the world where the national scheme of delegation exists, to give full effect to that scheme and for it not to be undermined by undue pressure from members or officers. I have a few quibbles with the drafting—that is not for today, but maybe something we can take up later. I urge the Government to consider this amendment very carefully.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, would have been proud of the speech delivered on her behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and commend him for continuing a campaign that he has promoted for some time, through a Private Member’s Bill and amendments to then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill promoting healthy homes, but the challenge that faces him is that health and homes are in two different government departments. Successive attempts to bring them together have so far failed. Paradoxically, 100 years ago, the Ministry of Health was responsible for housing and health, and between the two World Wars, that led to a more integrated approach to both health and housing. Indeed, my great uncle, Sir Hilton Young MP, was Minister for Health in the 1930s, and as Health Minister he introduced the Housing Act 1935, which set down standards for accommodation—something which the noble Lord’s amendments seek to build on.
Winding forward, the importance of bringing health and housing together was central to the Black report, published in 1980, about inequalities and health outcomes. It said:
“The consequences, and importance, of housing policies for other areas of social policy, including health policies, have received increasing recognition in recent years—as have the problems of co-ordination deriving in part from the location of responsibilities for housing and personal social services … and Health services”.
Then we had the Acheson report. What I found compelling was the Resolution Foundation’s recent report which said that poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health.
I looked at the debate in the other place on this amendment—it was for new Clause 9. There were two Back-Bench speakers, and it was all over in under a quarter of an hour—I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord on the Government Bench—including two other new clauses. That underlines the importance of this House in scrutinising legislation. The Minister there dismissed the need for a new duty to promote health because he said existing policy was adequate. There may be a copy of what he said in the folder in the Minister’s possession.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I rise to give a few words of support to my noble friend in sport Lord Moynihan—that is his expression, but I will use it today. Sporting activity is an incredibly important part of building most communities in our country. It brings them together and contributes to health. We have heard a lot about the Department of Health; it may not be represented here, but I am sure the Ministers are quite capable of carrying the message to it that if you do not have good sporting facilities and activity, you cannot utilise this. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond she will tell us how they are going to work this—or some duty that looks at all the benefits—into the new structure. We have a great deal here about driving something forward; as other noble Lords have said, if we drive forward something that does not deliver a decent environment—the opening comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, got to the heart of it—you will ultimately create unpleasant environments. We have done so in the past. We have already heard Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of the Gorbals, because it was a slum, to somewhere which rapidly became a slum except with new buildings, because it had no facilities. Can the Minister give us a description of how they are going to work in access to green spaces, active travel infrastructure, sport and physical activity? If these are excluded from planning up front, those making the decisions will not follow up on them—if you do not have to do it, you will not, because you are busy and you have a prime objective. I hope that the Minister will tell us how they are going to deal with this, because if they do not do so, I am afraid we are going to have to put it into the Bill, one way or another.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 123 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful, or ugly. They can enhance communities, or they can destroy them. We need quality homes that are sustainable and that in 200 or 300 years, people still think are beautiful. It was Winston Churchill who once remarked:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]
Thus, upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact upon our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being and most importantly, our mental and general health.
We already have many beautiful buildings in the UK, big and small, but it would seem that this aspect is all too often forgotten in new construction. Houses need to include local area designs, and, where possible, use local, natural materials. We should not forget that concrete and steel contribute significantly to carbon dioxide emissions, exacerbating climate change.
I understand that this was discussed in detail in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, commonly known as LURB. I ask the Minister, when are the provisions in LURB going to be implemented, and can she guarantee that they will be? Is the office of the place up and running in this regard, and will this have an effect on what is going to be built?
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 138A, 185SC and 185SD in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has articulated very well why these amendments are so important and should be considered.
The focus of the amendments, as we have heard, is to ensure that any national or local plan or strategy relating to planning and development must be designed to provide access, spaces and facilities, and to preserve existing sites for sport and physical activity, so that we can improve the health and well-being of society.
A proper local plan and strategy is critically important. Why? Research from StreetGames, the sports charity I chaired for several years, showed that children and young people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods typically tend not to travel outside of their immediate locality, and with other barriers, they have less access to opportunities for sport and play.
Sport England’s active lives survey shows that individuals in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to be inactive, partly due to a lack of safe, affordable and welcoming home spaces and facilities. This disparity has not helped factors such as limited school facilities’ access for community use, with data showing the correlation between facilities available and activity levels.
The Fields in Trust charity, this year celebrating its centenary, publishes the green space index. It estimates that by 2033, 4,000 new parks will be needed to maintain the current level of accessible green spaces across the country—and the current level is not enough. To preserve these park spaces and sports facilities, planning in future will need to be truly focused if our country is not to be worse off. The pausing or ending of the Opening Schools Facilities Fund is also unhelpful and detrimental, as this fund was providing its worth.
If we are to tackle health and socioeconomic inequalities, we need to improve community provision of opportunities for all, including those in the most deprived neighbourhoods. To do this means making sure that integrating sport and physical activity in all planning decisions is an absolute requirement.
StreetGames and many other similar organisations daily demonstrate the importance of local community facilities, sports fields, leisure centres, gyms and parks. We know how sport and physical activity help to improve lives, whether the issue be obesity, isolation, physical and mental health, or crime and anti-social behaviour. These organisations help aid social cohesion and provide places for social interaction, provided they have access to the right facilities. They deal daily with the rebalancing of issues of health inequality, and without concerted efforts through planning, they will be unable to do their work.
For these reasons and many more, I hope we can prioritise the issues raised in these amendments. I support these amendments because they protect the provision of sport and physical activity in the National Planning Policy Framework. In so doing, sport and physical activity become the underpinning of health and well-being within communities, and help eliminate inequalities.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the LGA and chair of Sport Wales. While recognising the devolved nature of planning, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the social return on investment for physical activity and sport in Wales is £5.98 billion a year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised the Well-being of Future Generations Act. It is an incredibly important lens through which to make decisions on things like sport and physical activity.
We have a chance with these amendments to really cement opportunities to be active in our communities. We do not get the chance to talk about sport that much in the Chamber. We are in the middle of an exciting moment in women’s sport this summer. We have had the Women’s Open in Porthcawl, the Euros, and the Women’s Rugby World Cup, but sport is a small part of activity, which we really need to concentrate on.
All the people who played in these amazing tournaments started somewhere, but to be good at sport—and the nation is generally supportive of our sportspeople—we need to have lots of people being physically active. To be physically active, you need access to play, but you also need a place to do it.
I thank the all-party parliamentary group on sport, which met this afternoon. We had representatives from the Sport and Recreation Alliance, and from cricket, tennis, Sport England and the FA, who talked about what we are already missing. On current demand, we already need 12,000 extra grass pitches, let alone after this summer of sport, when we will hopefully get thousands more young women who want to play sport.
We are a nation that loves sport, but we are also a nation that needs to be more active. I happened to be chair of ukactive when it produced a number of reports, the first of which was called Generation Inactive; there was also Turning the tide of physical activity. They highlighted the challenges that need addressing. We have a generation of young people who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. People are hitting frailty in their 40s and living with that for decades. This is both costly for society and bad for the individuals, because it excludes them from society. Around one in eight children in England between the ages of two and 10 is obese, according to an NHS survey published in September 2024.
Approximately 39% of all sports facilities in England, including sports halls, studios and pitches, are located behind school gates and often remain inaccessible outside school hours. There is a need to open them, and we cannot afford to lose any more than we currently have.
I was delighted that my noble friend—in sport— Lord Moynihan talked about swimming pools. We have seen through Covid the challenges of keeping them open. Again, this is not sport for sport’s sake. The Royal Life Saving Society estimates that 328 UK and Irish citizens lose their lives to accidental drowning each year, so keeping swimming pools open is incredibly important. If we do not protect these facilities, we are dooming another generation to a lack of opportunity. It is going to have an increasingly negative impact on their health.
Looking back to the summer of sport, we are seeing amazing players like Georgia Evans in rugby and Alessia Russo in football. They provide a moment of inspiration, but we have to do more than that. We have to provide the right facilities, whether you want to make the elite pathway or just not be very good at sport. We should channel Wales’s Well-being of Future Generations Act and look at the legacy we are leaving the boys and girls who follow, who desperately need somewhere to play.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is the second of two debates we have had this afternoon on the link between health and well-being on the one hand, and planning laws on the other. The second one, relating to the link between creating healthy homes and sport, is fundamental to creating healthy communities.
As a councillor who represents an area where healthy living beyond the age of 60 is at one of the lowest levels in the country, I support totally all the amendments in this group, including the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He pursued it during consideration of the levelling-up Bill, but unfortunately it was mostly resisted by the then Government. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has clearly made the point about access to areas of play.
I will, at this point, mention one example. One of the most deprived towns in this country, Dewsbury, has had its swimming pool and leisure centre closed and it is not going to be replaced. When that occurs, you know we are in trouble as a country. I urge the Minister to respond positively, as she did to earlier amendments, to all the amendments in this group as they will make a difference now and in future.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this important group of amendments relates to the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods, the role of planning in promoting well-being, and the standards and accuracy of housing development. I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments; their recognition of the need to place health and well-being at the heart of housing policy and planning is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation of the sentiment behind the amendments, and the desire to ensure that development is not just about numbers and units delivered, but about the quality of life of those who will live in them.
I note the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Taken together, these seek to integrate health and well-being considerations into housing and planning through duties on authorities’ reporting requirements and potential enforcement provisions. The link between housing and public health is well recognised but, as with many such proposals, the issue is one of balancing aspirations with the demands of regulation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has also brought forward a thoughtful proposal: Amendment 124 on advertising. This raises an important issue of public health and the role of advertising. The noble Baroness mentioned gambling advertising, but I would also add that for junk food, particularly in areas close to schools, for instance.
Amendment 132 on the disclosure of environmental performance in marketing materials and Amendment 227, clarifying local authority enforcement powers, raise important questions about consumer protection and transparency. We look forward to the Government’s reply.
I wish to recognise the valuable contribution of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and speak to his Amendment 138A. As he often emphasises, creating space for sport and physical activity can deliver wide-ranging benefits, not only for an individual’s fitness, but for community cohesion and long-term public health. His amendment would add the promotion of health and well-being to the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies. This raises an important and thought-provoking point, and we look forward with interest to the Government’s response.
Lastly, I return to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. We have already underlined the importance of respecting local vernacular and design in planning and development. The spirit of her Amendment 185SA is, I believe, a constructive one: namely, that there should be a preferred approach to the consideration of architectural style grounding in sound plan-making principles, and framed by an appropriate, locally distinctive context for building design. Where that is fitting, such an approach ensures that development is not only functional but reflective of the character and heritage of the community it serves.
That is why the previous Conservative Government set up the Office for Place: to ensure that good design was part of building. Unfortunately, this current Labour Government have closed the office. We should not just be building units; we must build homes that are well designed and form part of successful communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how this Government will ensure good design.
Across this group of amendments, there is a unifying theme: that housing should not merely be about shelter, but about creating places that sustain life, health and community—whether through high standards, clearer duties, better design or fairer advertising. These amendments challenge us to raise our ambition, but ambition must be tempered with practicality. The central question is how we embed these principles in a way that is workable, proportionate and does not risk unintended consequences for housing delivery, affordability or local discretion. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to respond to these important proposals, and how they will ensure that the planning system and housing policy place health and the well-being of people and communities at their heart.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments tabled in this grouping. We have had a very useful and interesting debate on this topic this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who put forward amendments, who have deep expertise and are great advocates on the issue of health, housing and communities. That is greatly appreciated.
The Government agree that the quality of our homes, and the wider environment around them, are intrinsically linked to the creation of healthy communities. Taken together, planning policy, guidance and building regulations tackle these important matters and collectively promote the creation of healthy communities and homes for the people who reside there. It may be helpful if I quickly outline some of these provisions at the outset to show the interaction between the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, the National Model Design Code, building regulations and the Future Homes Standard—that sounds more like a PhD essay than a quick intervention, but I will do my best—in collectively promoting healthy homes and communities.
First, the NPPF has the goal of achieving sustainable development at its heart, which includes supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community, and ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. I am not sure about the 70 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about, but we will do our best. The framework sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, and enable healthy lives, through both promoting good health and preventing ill-health, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs and reduce health inequalities. That is all set out in the National Planning Policy Framework; it is very clear what is expected.
The framework also recognises the importance of open space, sports and recreation facilities in supporting the health and well-being of communities. It is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for these spaces and facilities, and seek opportunities for new provision. Further considerations on healthy and safe communities are also set out in Planning Practice Guidance, which supports the implementation of the NPPF in practice.
Secondly, the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code are part of the suite of Planning Practice Guidance. They illustrate how well-designed, healthy, inclusive, social and green places can be achieved. They provide detailed advice on creating safe, inclusive and accessible homes, buildings and public spaces, prioritising walking and cycling, and green space and biodiversity in new development that promotes activity and social interaction.
All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are required to meet the nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. While under the permitted development right that allows for commercial buildings, such as shops and offices, to change use to homes, local authorities can consider the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers during the decision-making process. All new homes, whether delivered through a permitted development right or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations and fire safety requirements.
Lastly, building regulations set out the minimum legal performance standards that all new homes must meet to ensure that they protect people’s safety, health and welfare. We continue to review and strengthen these standards. For example, this autumn the Government will publish the Future Homes Standard, which will increase the energy efficiency requirements in building regulations. New homes will be equipped with low-carbon heating and, in most cases, solar panels, making them fit for the future, comfortable for occupants, and affordable to heat. At the same time, we will publish our response to the call for evidence on the new overheating requirement, which has been in effect since June 2022. This requires that new homes are designed to minimise overheating and thus remain resilient as our climate changes.
Amendment 123 is on health and well-being in development plans. Amendments 138A, 185SC, 185SD and 185SF are on ensuring adequate provision for spaces and facilities for sport and physical activity and making sure they are appropriately considered in the planning system and in new spatial development strategies. The provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework I have outlined mean that these matters will already be taken into account. Within Clause 52, new Section 12D(1) enables spatial development strategies to include policies relating to access to green space, active travel, and sports and physical activity facilities, providing that they are of strategic importance to the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is in the other place at the moment. Clause 43 of that Bill is a general duty which applies to all the duties that combined authorities have to have regard to—the need to improve health inequalities between people living in their area. It is not a specific planning duty, and we believe that in the case of planning we should deal with those matters through the National Planning Policy Framework.
Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to include environmental impact and public health as additional considerations to take into account in regulating advertisements. The advertisement consent regime is designed to ensure that outdoor advertisements are in the right locations. It is a light-touch system concerned with only two issues: the impact of the advertisement on amenity and public safety. Amenity includes oral and visual amenity and relevant factors such as the general characteristics of the locality. Public safety is largely concerned with the transport network: for example, distractions to road users or safety on railway lines. The content of advertisements is subject to a separate regulatory system—I know the noble Baroness is aware of this—which is overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. To widen the scope of matters which can be considered through the advertisement consent regime, particularly in relation to public health, is likely to bring the focus more on to the content of the advertisement. If that were the case it would create an overlap between the two regulatory regimes where at present there is a clear distinction, which would risk causing uncertainty and confusion. Therefore, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, we think the current scope of the advertisement consent regime remains appropriate.
Amendments 132 and 185D would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose. I must reiterate that the pursuit of sustainable development is at the heart of what the planning system seeks to achieve. Reflecting this, it is a principle which is woven through our National Planning Policy Framework, from the overarching objectives which it sets, through to the specific policies for achieving them. For example, the national planning policy sets out how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses, essential community services and facilities, and the vital role of open space, green infrastructure and play in supporting health and well-being and recreation. It is clear that local plans should meet identified needs and seek opportunities for new provision. It also supports a transition to a low-carbon future and promotes renewable and low-carbon energy, and requires plans to take a proactive approach to climate change. These are all important principles, and we should not underestimate the role of the National Planning Policy Framework in translating these into practice. But I wish to resist these amendments, not just because they would impose significant burdens on any individual or body exercising a planning function in order to gauge compliance, but as inevitably these provisions will become a focus for challenges to plans and decisions.
Amendment 185SA seeks to introduce a code of practice for design. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Levitt on her well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for speaking to her amendment—I suspect he may have a few more occasions when he has to say, “Yes, Minister”, but I do not want to interfere with that part of his life. I agree with my noble friend that we have a role to play in setting clear expectations for design and placemaking to support local authorities to demand better through the planning system, and a responsibility to ensure that they have the tools necessary to do this. I thank her very much for meeting with me to discuss this. As I have mentioned, the National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that the creation of high-quality and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and development should achieve. The framework is supplemented by national design guidance. I gather from this amendment that my noble friend believes we could go further, and that is exactly what we intend to do. We are consulting on national policies for decision-making, including on design, later in 2025, and we are also in the process of updating national design guidance and will publish this later this year.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I specifically address the issue of artificial turf, about which there is rising public concern. Perhaps the Minister could write to me later about whether the Government are taking a look at that, given the level of public concern.
Lord Banner (Con)
It appeared from what the Minister said that a key factor weighing in the Government’s mind against the purpose of planning is the risk of legal challenges. For my part, I think that that fear is probably overblown. The purpose would only be something that would have to be taken into account. Once it was taken into account, any decision that was rational would not be liable for judicial review. I invite the Government to reflect on that. Obviously, I am very happy to help in any way I can on that issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and am happy to reflect on any issues raised in Committee. If he wants further discussions on it, I am happy to have those.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, this has been another good, if lengthy, debate, which I thought mixed very well the principles and the practical. A lot of very practical points came up, such as those about the financial impact of activity from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; the very practical proposals from my noble friend Lord Carlile about the design principles; and some very important points from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about the links between health and planning and whether those are actually brought together, anatomising the various ways in which it does not look as if they are.
I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and I will look at what she has to say about how the proposals that I and others have been putting forward cut across what is already happening in the various proposals from the Government. If I may, when I have done that, I might wish to come back to talk to her before Report to discuss those particular issues.
I shall resist the temptation to ask one last question. With all that panoply of action that the Government are taking, what happens if the result we all want is not delivered? How do we secure the actual delivery? But I am not going to ask that question at this point, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus: Vaccination Programme
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of the respiratory syncytial virus vaccination programme in ensuring all infants receive an equitable offer of protection from the virus.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for being present to respond to this debate; the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on the Opposition Benches, who used to be the Minister responding to my questions and debates on these issues; and the Government Whip, who also used to respond to some of my questions.
RSV is a major public health threat, and vaccination is a key tool to combat the risk to infants. Each year, thousands of infants and older adults are hospitalised, causing pain and distress to families and significant costs to the NHS and productivity. Vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus is proven to significantly reduce the risk of RSV-related lower respiratory illness and to minimise potential disease progression and complications.
The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recommend and implement a maternal and adult national immunisation programme when it was rolled out across the nations and regions in September last year. The two programmes have been widely hailed as significant successes, both achieving higher than expected uptake. The RSV vaccine has been offered to pregnant women in England since September 2024 to address the significant burden of RSV-related illness, hospitalisations and deaths, particularly among infants under six months of age and older adults who are at increased risk.
The latest government data for RSV vaccine coverage of pregnant women in England is encouraging. Of the 37,328 women reported as having given birth in the survey month of April 2025, 54% had received the vaccine. The highest coverage was reported in the south-east, with 63.4%, and the lowest in London, with 44.8%. Coverage also varied by ethnic group: the highest coverage was reported among the “other ethnic groups— Chinese”, with 70.6%, and the lowest was among the “Black of Black British-Caribbean” category, with 25.6%.
The UK’s maternal RSV vaccination programme is already delivering positive results for patients and the health system, supported by emerging real-world data from other countries. Recent UK data published on the immediate impact of RSV vaccination is very encouraging, both for the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing sickness and in alleviating hospital pressures—a key priority for the Government and the health system.
A preprint study from Public Health Scotland reported vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated hospitalisation of 82.91%, averting an estimated 228 cases of RSV-related LRTI hospitalisation in infants aged greater than 90 days. Estimates from the BronchStop clinical research group highlight vaccine effectiveness of 72% against RSV-associated hospitalisation for infants whose mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery.
It is interesting to note the positive data from Argentina. Alongside the UK, it was one of the first countries to roll out the programme. This data adds further weight to the benefit of maternal vaccination against RSV, with similarly positive effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalisation and deaths.
The analysis estimates that just over £14 million of the £80 million annual cost is due to productivity losses and about £1.5 million to out-of-pocket costs incurred by parents or carers. The remaining £65 million is healthcare costs, including 467,230 GP visits and 33,937 hospitalisations per year in the UK for children aged under five with RSV.
The data on the impact of the older adult programme is also positive, highlighting the benefit to individuals, the NHS and the economy. The burden of RSV in older adults is equally significant. Each year in the UK there are approximately 3.6 million cases of RSV in adults, leading to an estimated 600,000 GP visits, 460,000 NHS 111 calls and 24,000 hospitalisations. The annual cost to the NHS of looking after adult patients with RSV is considerable.
The early data from the RSV programme is positive but now is a critical time to focus on uptake across all vaccine programmes to help reverse the trend in declining uptake. Although these very early successes must be celebrated, they also must be set against the background of a concerning dip in uptake across many other childhood and adult vaccination programmes, an issue already identified by the Royal College of Paediatrics.
Therefore, we should be reinforcing our shared public health goal of continuing to ensure vaccinations are widely available and doubling down on efforts to ensure they reach everyone. I was deeply concerned at the weekend to learn that there was a doctor from the United States speaking at the Reform conference, denying and decrying vaccinations and vaccines, which I thought was totally irresponsible.
The gap in uptake between the highest and lowest geographical areas in the UK for maternal RSV, and the significant differences in coverage by ethnic group, highlight the urgent need to improve uptake where it falls well below expectations. Extra care and attention must also be given to those who may have valid questions about vaccination, particularly newer vaccines. According to the latest UKHSA figures, none of the main maternal and childhood vaccines in England reached the WHO target of 95% in 2024-25.
This follows hard on the heels of findings published recently that showed one in five children will start primary school without protection against diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. In response to questions about the worrying fall in uptake across vaccine programmes, Minister Dalton cited a lack of access as a key challenge preventing eligible people taking up vaccines; that was considered to be one of the impediments. The ambition of the 10-year plan to enable healthcare to be delivered closer to where people live can only be a good thing for vaccine uptake, particularly if this means vaccination can be delivered across a range of settings, from GP practices to pharmacies, and via midwives for maternal vaccination programmes such as RSV, which is fast becoming an exemplar case.
As we approach a year since the launch of the RSV programme, we must continue to ensure uptake improves to support public health, help minimise the burden on our health system and to minimise the financial impact on parents, carers and employers. In this regard, I am very concerned that there is an equitable distribution and an equitable accessibility to those vaccines for all parents, particularly with infants.
Therefore, I have certain questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that all infants are able to access protection going into their first winter respiratory season, including those who were born too early for maternal antibodies to transfer and infants whose mothers choose to not participate in the maternal vaccination programme?
Secondly, what steps are the Government and the NHS taking to avoid exacerbating inequalities by reducing the current variation in uptake of the maternal vaccination programme across regions and ethnic groups? Finally, will my noble friend the Minister commit to ensuring that comprehensive real world data is systematically collected and analysed from the maternal RSV programme, and will she outline the steps that the department will take to use this evidence when shaping future health policy and immunisation strategies?
I would like to thank the Minister for being here this evening to respond. I look forward to her answers and an update on accessibility and—shall we say—equal accessibility to those RSV vaccines for children and infants throughout the UK.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in this important debate this evening. Summer is only just behind us, yet I have no doubt that minds of NHS leaders will already be turning to how to deal with winter pressures. The NHS has always faced challenges in winter but, before the pandemic, only around one in 500 patients waited for more than 12 hours for emergency admission during the winter peak. Since then, the numbers have already risen sharply, with January 2025 seeing a record high of more than one in 10 patients—11.21%—waiting for more than 12 hours.
Seasonal illnesses, of which RSV is one example, have played a significant role in increasing this strain. RSV accounts for over 33,000 children under five and 24,000 adults admitted to hospital each year. That is why I welcome the decision to launch a new vaccination programme against RSV—announced by the previous Conservative Government in June 2024 and supported by the current Government since—to protect mums, their infants and older adults.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for securing this important debate today. It is hugely important, and her work has led me to take part in this debate this evening, because, for all the positives about the introduction of the new vaccination programme, we are seeing very substantial variations in take-up across different regions and ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. For example, as already mentioned, coverage in the east of England is almost 10% lower than in the south-east, and coverage in London is even lower. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on what is being done to address this.
More broadly, there continues to be misinformation about vaccines and their safety, not least with wild claims being made from some political parties about vaccines over the last few days, which I will not repeat here. I am a strong defender of free speech, but misleading people can be very dangerous, and we need to ensure people have access to credible information when making decisions about their own health. I also hope the Minister can update on what more can be done to ensure patients are receiving high-quality and factual information that addresses risks and benefits, so that we can see a wider take-up of not just the RSV vaccine but vaccine programmes more widely.
In closing, it is incumbent upon us to recognise that awareness is not a passive state but a catalyst for principled action. The recent rollout of the maternal RSV immunisation programme, while a welcome development, reveals concerning disparities in uptake. As of May 2025, only 42.8% of women giving birth in England had received the RSV vaccine prior to delivery, with regional variation, and with lower figures reported in Wales. These numbers underscore the urgent need to strengthen public engagement, improve access and ensure that every infant, regardless of geography or circumstance, is afforded equitable protection. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, will continue to scrutinise, to question and, above all, to advocate; she has a new voice to support her.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on securing this important debate. We have heard from her about the need to ensure that all infants receive an equitable offer of protection from the respiratory syncytial virus, and that the maternal RSV vaccination programme is fairly new, having been introduced in Scotland in August 2024 and in England in September 2024. It is important now, therefore, to monitor its uptake in detail and to assess the protection that it gives.
We are grateful, therefore, to the UK Health Security Agency—UKHSA—for the monitoring undertaken so far, which has already provided vital insights. From this, we are encouraged to see that the level of vaccine uptake has increased, month on month, since its first implementation. For England, the UKHSA’s first annual report on the programme, published in July, showed that 42.8% of all women who had given birth in the six months after 1 September had received an RSV vaccine prior to delivery. Progress is being made, because, for the month of April alone, the figure reached 54%, with most regions showing a pattern of increasing monthly uptake.
However, as we have heard, there were significant differences in uptake in different commissioning regions and among different ethnic groups. For the month of April this year, the UKHSA reported that the highest coverage of the vaccine was in the south-east of England, at 63.4%, while the London commissioning region reported the lowest level of coverage, at 44.8%. For the Midlands, the coverage was 51.3%. The variation across ethnic groups was much wider. The “Other ethnic groups—Chinese” category showed the highest coverage, at 70.6%, while the “Black or Black British—Caribbean” category reported the lowest level of coverage, at just 25.6%. Greater efforts must therefore be made to improve take-up of the vaccine, and they must be targeted effectively.
Will the Minister let us know more about how the Government will help to address the disparity in coverage by region and ethnicity? The figure for “Black or Black British—Caribbean” is alarmingly low. Can the Minister tell us whether any research has been undertaken to see if there is a difference between the point in pregnancy at which people of different ethnicities present themselves to GPs or midwives? What may be the cultural differences or barriers relating to access? Is there an issue about less time being available for a working mother as opposed to one not in employment? The vaccination is most effective when offered around the 28-week antenatal appointment, or within a few weeks of this, to provide babies with the best protection for their first six months of life. Those who present late may be less protected even if they ultimately receive the jab.
I am aware that the UKHSA is planning further investigations. Can we know whether such crucial questions are being looked into? We know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, Ashley Dalton, has stated that UKHSA monitoring is a “key tool”. She promised that an update to the UKHSA’s immunisation equity strategy is “forthcoming” to ensure equitable access, but could we possibly know when? Meanwhile, the production of RSV antenatal vaccine information leaflets in over 30 languages and in various formats is a very positive step.
Significant issues about the vaccination rollout have been raised by the Royal College of Midwives. Clare Livingstone of the RCN noted in January that midwives had more work to do to respond to concerns and questions around vaccinations. She acknowledged that it was not always possible for midwives to provide all the information, reassurance and support needed, often due to lack of time to discuss each vaccine in detail. The RCM has suggested that there are more challenges about these issues in some regions than in others. We need to know if that is because of staff vacancies, which may vary by region, or because of the number of patients on each midwife’s list, or both factors, as these issues are obviously connected.
There is an urgent need to recruit more midwives. Some midwives have raised concerns about workforce capacity and training availability. Some maternity services face considerable challenges in implementation, and they are being required to send women to their GPs instead. The Royal College’s previous calls about having the right staff in the right place, with the right education and training, must be heeded. Training materials, including webinars for midwives and patient-facing publications, have been made available in collaboration with the UKHSA and NHS England. Will these now be updated in the light of the questions that are being asked over the first year of the programme?
We need to know if there is any link between hesitation about having the RSV jab and hesitation about having other jabs, such as the Covid and MMR vaccinations. Much seriously damaging misinformation has been circulated about vaccinations, including very recently, and we all, in responsible parties, need to help to counter it.
Eligibility for the RSV vaccination is an issue. NHS England has acted on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. This was based on safety, efficacy, cost and how many people of different groups become really ill with the virus. Initially, the programme is for pregnant women, preferably around the 28th week for maximum efficacy, and for older people aged between 75 and 80. A recent study in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health journal has shown the maternal RSV vaccination to be 58% effective in preventing hospitalisation of infants. This figure, as we heard, increases to 72% if mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery. The UKHSA confirms that this evidence clearly shows that the RSV vaccine for pregnant women is highly effective.
However, the criteria for older people, currently set at the ages of between 75 and 80, appears to many people to be arbitrary and questions are being asked about it. Ministers have said that the JCVI will be monitoring the current criteria alongside evidence of serious infections among those not currently eligible. Can the Minister please say when the joint committee’s next investigation will be published? Will it be considering the case of people who are immune-suppressed and who may therefore be at greater risk of serious illness if they catch the virus?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for securing this debate today on RSV, particularly on vaccines for children. I pay tribute to her for continuously raising awareness of RSV. As she reminded me, when I was a Minister she raised it a number of times and continues to raise it. That shows how important it is and the vital role she plays.
As we know, RSV, alongside flu and Covid, is a leading cause of serious respiratory illnesses. Before the rollout of the vaccination programme, it was responsible for more than 10,000 hospital admissions and 4,000 deaths each year among adults aged over 75. The noble Baroness reminded us that it poses a danger in early childhood, with, as other noble Lords have said, over 30,000 hospitalisations and up to 30 deaths each year among children under five. One of the reasons that children are especially at risk is due to their developing smaller airways, which makes them particularly susceptible to bronchiolitis, a condition in which the lungs become inflamed during the fight against infection. We also know that RSV is perhaps more widespread than is commonly known and can seriously affect the most vulnerable people in our society.
I welcome the opportunity that this debate allows us in taking the time to speak about RSV and to ask the Government about the steps they are taking to prevent it as much as possible and to treat it. The previous and current Governments and the many health professionals are to be congratulated on the fact that RSV vaccine coverage has been rising steadily. It is good news that, among eligible older adults in England, the vaccine uptake has risen from 23% in September 2024 to around 63% by the end of June 2025. Similarly, as others have said, maternal vaccination has followed a similar trajectory, so that among mothers who gave birth in March 2025, 55% have been vaccinated. I know noble Lords have given out various statistics today.
The challenge now, as the noble Baroness has identified, is how to increase this coverage further. We know that the vaccination works; a recent study, looking at data from 14 hospitals in England up to March 2025, found that vaccination reduced the chances of hospital admissions with RSV infection by 82%. It is important that we repeat some of these statistics so people recognise that vaccines work. More relevant to today’s debate is that the estimated reduction in RSV risk was 58% for infants whose mothers were vaccinated at any time before delivery. It is sometimes easy to quote statistics and figures and see who has the best or the more up-to-date statistics, but sometimes we forget the human element. It is clear that taking the RSV vaccine protects us, our friends and our loved ones from harm and hospitalisation, and we should not forget that.
Despite that good news, though, as with other conditions, there are substantial disparities in how effective these measures have been in the population data, as my noble friend Lord Mott, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said. As we have seen, recent data from the UKHSA showed that the uptake of the RSV vaccine for pregnant women in London was about 44%, compared to a figure of 65% in the south-west. We have heard from other noble Lords that members of the “Black or Black British—Caribbean” ethnic community are substantially less likely to be vaccinated than the highest uptake. Interestingly, ethnically Chinese people are the most vaccinated group, but in the “Black or Black British—Caribbean” cohort the coverage reported by the UKHSA earlier this year was only 28%.
We saw that the uptake of RSV vaccine for pregnant women in some of the UK’s largest ethnic groups is also quite low, with white British people at 62% and British Indian people at 56%. This data shows that, while many people have been vaccinated against RSV and the numbers have certainly increased, there are many communities where vaccination levels remain low. Clearly more needs to be done.
When I met the Caribbean and African Health Network last week, it explained some of the factors behind vaccine hesitancy within their communities. Sometimes it stems from a lack of trust of the organisations promoting vaccines, as well as a lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate information. We also know, as other noble Lords have said, about misinformation about the harms that could be caused by vaccines, spread via social media but also by politicians in some parts of the political spectrum.
Noble Lords will recall that we had to tackle vaccine hesitancy under the Covid programme. We found that asking local community organisations—people in the communities, especially faith communities, who knew the people we were trying to reach—to take the lead helped to build trust, but it did not always solve the problem. It is very easy to point to one success story. Indeed, in at least one case, there were certain churches that were actually discouraging their congregations from being vaccinated. That just shows how granular we have to be in reaching those communities and trying to understand some of those barriers.
So, while noble Lords may extol the benefits of vaccination programmes for RSV, Covid, HPV and MMR, there is clearly more work to be done in reaching out to individuals in the communities where uptake is low. We need to understand their concerns and the barriers that they feel they face, and we need to understand how we can tap into the power of trusted local community organisations to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from RSV and other vaccines.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, stressed the importance of vaccinating infants, but we need to reach the children via their parents and the communities in which they live. I am sure that noble Lords across the House share the ambition to break down barriers of access and build trust in communities, and to make sure more people are protected against RSV.
When we returned after the short break, the Minister said she missed a number of questions from noble Lords across the House, so, as in any debate, I want to make sure that I help her in that respect. I have questions but, if the Minister cannot answer now, perhaps she will write to us. What specific steps are her department and organisations such as the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the UKHSA taking to address these disparities in RSV vaccine uptake, not only regionally but also ethnically? What initiatives are there to increase uptake in those ethnic communities where vaccination levels are particularly low? What has worked and what has not?
Is the Minister able to share some good stories where specific programmes to tackle vaccine hesitancy have actually showed some success? How can that best practice be rolled out to other communities in other parts of the country? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked about disaggregated data—what disaggregated data is available on RSV vaccine uptake? If it is not yet available, will the Minister look at or perhaps commit to publishing regular disaggregated data on RSV vaccine uptake by region, ethnicity and socioeconomic group so that Parliament and the public can track progress in ensuring equity of access? I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, would appreciate such disaggregated data, as all noble Lords would.
I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for securing this debate today and for the opportunity it has afforded the full Benches to discuss this important issue. Your Lordships recognise that the Minister takes this issue seriously, so we look forward to the responses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we are all in agreement in our thanks to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for securing this important debate and for her very thorough and considered introduction. Acknowledgement has also rightly been paid to my noble friend for her campaigning and her raising of awareness of this issue, which has made a real difference, as we have heard. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions and questions, which I will reflect on and share with the responsible Minister: Ashley Dalton MP, the Minister for Public Health.
RSV is a common virus that 90% of children get before the age of two. It is often mild, causing a cough or a cold, but can also be serious—it can sometimes be fatal because it can cause lung infections such as bronchiolitis and pneumonia which make it difficult for babies to breathe and to feed. Watching your baby struggle for breath is alarming for any parent, carer or family member, and far too many know what this feels like as RSV is the biggest cause of winter admissions in children’s hospitals every year.
My noble friend asked about the collection of systematic data. I can confirm that, as with all major infectious diseases, the Government regularly review data collected on the impact of RSV and continuously monitor immunisation programmes, including uptake levels in different groups. I am glad to say all noble Lords have raised this theme, and I will return to it later. Researchers and government epidemiologists provide evidence to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the JCVI’s advice is of immense and direct importance to any decision.
In June 2023, the JCVI—as noble Lords have said—recommended programmes to protect babies against RSV, and in September 2024 this Government introduced vaccinations for all pregnant women from 28 weeks. But last year the JCVI highlighted how very premature babies may not benefit from this new programme, either because they are born before their mothers are vaccinated or because there is limited time for the protection to be passed down to them during pregnancy after their mothers have been vaccinated.
I am glad to say that this debate gives me an opportunity to update your Lordships’ House on the key changes the Government have made recently to deliver equity in RSV protection, something all noble Lords have emphasised the importance of this evening. Since 2010, the NHS has offered an immunisation called palivizumab to infants at greatest risk of severe RSV illness. This is effective, but it is also expensive, as it requires a monthly injection, which means it has been limited to around 4,000 infants at most risk each winter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, is very concerned, as am I, about winter pressures, and rightly so.
I am therefore delighted to announce that from the end of this month the NHS will also start offering immunisation to all premature babies born before 32 weeks, as advised by the JCVI. This is the result of the Government working with the NHS and partners to secure a product that is more effective in tackling infant RSV. The new immunisation is called nirsevimab. It provides better protection and requires only a single injection over winter. I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome this development; it shows the improvements and changes we can make by harnessing technology and innovation, and I am glad to be able to share it with noble Lords this evening.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the steps the Government are taking to ensure protection for all infants going into their first winter, including for babies born prematurely and those whose mothers have chosen not to get vaccinated. Let me say loud and clear that my message is that vaccination during pregnancy is the best way to prevent babies from becoming seriously ill with RSV.
The vaccination programme is expected to have a major impact on RSV this winter, including for the most premature babies. The vaccine is offered from week 28 of pregnancy, and most are given it by week 31. As my noble friend observed, a study led by NHS paediatricians found that the vaccine was 72% effective in preventing hospitalisations in the first six months of life for infants whose mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery. Every noble Lord who has spoken this evening has rightly counselled against listening to misinformation, which is dangerous and damaging, and I certainly share that view.
The JCVI also noted that clinical trial data shows high levels of immunity in babies born 14 days after the mother is vaccinated. Compared with babies whose mothers are not vaccinated, immunity was also relatively high in babies born less than 14 days after the vaccination. This has informed the JCVI’s advice that babies born before 32 weeks are the group that requires an additional immunisation to protect them during the winter. Again, as with all new programmes, the Government will be closely monitoring the impact of the programme in different population groups.
As we have heard, the maternal RSV programme is only a year old, and already vaccine uptake in pregnant women has increased since the programme began. We want to see many more pregnant women getting vaccinated. Every noble Lord who has spoken this evening rightly asked what is being done to reduce the current variation in uptake of the maternal RSV programme across regions and ethnic groups—and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made a helpful comment about his recent meeting with affected groups.
We very much recognise how much more needs to be done, particularly in areas and communities where uptake is lower. That is why we are continuing to implement the NHS vaccination strategy to make vaccinations more accessible, locally tailored and inclusive. To do this, we are transferring the commissioning of vaccination services to ICBs. That will support NHS regions with delivering vaccination services that are properly tailored to the local needs of local populations.
We are also providing better access to vaccinations. For example, we are updating information resources in 30 languages, encouraging maternity services to have early discussions with pregnant women about vaccinations, and ensuring that training is in place so that staff can have the knowledge to address concerns and confidence in the programme. From this month, we are running broadcast and digital media communications to encourage pregnant women to get their RSV, whooping cough and flu vaccines, with greater efforts being made in the communities and geographical areas that have lower uptake.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked where the update on the UKHSA immunisation equity strategy is. I am glad to be able to tell him that the update was published in July, and it sets out to ensure a whole range of things, which I think will be of interest to noble Lords: there will be more accountable system leadership on immunisation inequities; there will be better access to timely, high-quality data; practitioners and policymakers will be better able to share, generate and use evidence; and there will be better people- and place-based approaches to communications and engagement around immunisation. It is certainly intended that these actions will raise awareness in communities across the country, as we have discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mott, rightly referred to winter pressures. I hope that in the way I have described, the reduction of the incidence of RSV will take pressure off the NHS in the winter. We know that flu is very much a recurring pressure. I emphasise to noble Lords that this year’s flu vaccination programme is under way. It began on 1 September for children and pregnant women; and adults aged over 65—which I know not everyone in the Chamber is, but a number of us are —those with long-term health conditions, and front-line health and social care workers can get their flu vaccine from 1 October. Again, I encourage everybody to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked when the JCVI will consider the immune-suppressed. It has advised that the expansion of the older adult immunisation programme will be guided, as ever, by emerging evidence of disease incidence in different groups, and we will certainly be considering any future advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about good news stories, so to finish: the reported increase in the uptake of whooping cough vaccines given to pregnant women reached 72.6% because of the communication and the attention given to that. The Government will continue to monitor the impact and the Government are pleased to have made a real and positive impact for babies, parents and others affected by RSV.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Tuesday 9th September 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-V(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Sep 2025)
“Access to data on overheating risk(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to several amendments in this group, Amendments 125, 126 and 181, all of which address the issues of overheating.
I shall constrain myself to commenting on the amendments in my name, but this is the direction of the overall travel of the group. I do not have any particular attachment to the different means by which this issue is addressed here. What is very clear from the level of engagement is that there is a serious issue of overheating, as reflected by this group of amendments.
I shall start with a statistic that is quite shocking. Since 2016, about 570,000 new homes have been built without adequate adaptations to respond to increased temperatures. We have heard from Members of your Lordships’ House who are members of the Committee on Climate Change, and many of us in this debate will have heard from the reports about the inadequacy of climate adaptation. We were speaking in an earlier group about the inadequacy of dealing with flooding. This is overheating, which brings huge financial costs. We have had heatwaves this year but, if we go back to 2022, we saw temperatures over 40 degrees centigrade for the first time, which resulted in more than 3,000 heat-related deaths, the highest level of mortality since the first heatwave plan was written in 2023. We know that, with the climate emergency, this is going to happen more and more often at greater and greater levels. It is particularly the young and old who are most vulnerable to this, but we are increasingly in a situation where everybody is vulnerable.
To go back to a point that I raised on an earlier group about ventilation and so on, we are also going to see, sadly, an increasing number of fires, in natural environments and probably, as we saw in London in 2022, in urban environments as well. That is where we also have to think about wildfire smoke and its impact on human health.
I want to go to the issue that we keep raising again and again in amendments—that this is very much a social justice and inequality issue. It is broadly the more economically disadvantaged households that are at greatest risks from these overheating issues, although it is not just those households. Almost 5.5 million children, over half of those in England, are living in homes at risk of overheating; according to the English Housing Survey 2022 analysis by the Resolution Foundation, more than 1 million of those children are living in London, mostly in social housing.
These amendments look at allowing local authorities, where the local climatic data indicates elevated risk—which, in essence, now means everywhere in the UK—to take specific action under the Town and Country Planning Act. Also—and this is important, and it is crucial that we discuss it under my Amendment 181 about cooling hierarchy guidance—we heard during the recent heatwaves that we have experienced in the UK a great deal of discussion about air conditioning: “Why do we not have air conditioning? Why don’t we install air conditioning?” Of course, the problem with air conditioning is that it is innately counterproductive: you are cooling the home and heating the outside, whether that is through the electricity used or even very directly, with urban heat islands, and so on. Air conditioning is not the answer—and then there are the inequality issues that arise from that as well.
Amendment 181 talks about the Secretary of State providing guidance to local planning authorities to outline a cooling hierarchy and provide guidance on how it is applied. This is where again—it is the problem with green politics of everything being related to everything else—I have to cross-reference back to our discussion about nature. One of the best ways to provide cooling in environments is to have trees and greenery; it is much better than concrete, as it reflects back the heat heating up the area around it. It is about having a structured approach and looking at greenery and at passive and sustainable design elements.
Let us think, for example, of the people of Yemen, who have a traditional architecture, in the hottest temperatures that humans can just about stand, that is cool and comfortable, based on centuries of knowledge of how to build in ways that encourage breezes and bring the air coming over. We come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, not currently in her place, and the value of water as a key cooling element—a breeze coming across water, circulating through a house and cooling it down; shades in the right directions and in the right places; and, obviously, the thermal mass of a house so that it does not heat up too quickly but also ensures that it can cool itself down.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank my supporters on Amendment 127, the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am very pleased to bring back this amendment, which I originally raised as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act a couple of years back. The reason I am pleased to bring it back is that it is a reminder that we have made a lot of progress in this area over the last couple of years. Noble Lords may remember the great progress we made following ping-pong on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, when we started that process of embedding net zero and climate into our planning system.
Since then, we have had the updates of the National Planning Policy Framework, again embedding climate further into the system, which is already good progress, but as Ministers and noble Lords like to say, there is always more to do. Despite this progress, it is vital that the Government go further, because Peers from all parties across the House have worked extremely hard in recent years to embed our climate and nature goals across a range of sectors and regulatory regimes. That includes the health service, in the Health and Care Act 2022; our skills framework, in the IfATE Bill; Ofwat; the Crown Estate; and Ofgem, in the Energy Act 2022. It is vital that we take those same steps for our planning system, embedding this in statute, not only to help the Government deliver on their overarching climate and environmental goals but to support the 2030 electricity system targets and the target to build 1.5 million homes.
It is particularly important in planning, and the reason is that there are so many different issues to contend with when decision-makers are considering a planning application. Part of the problem is that lack of strategic guidance and direction on which factors are important; that is partly what is leading to paralysis in our planning system. In recent years, we have had legal challenges which have actually delayed sustainable homes being built for years—for example, the Salt Cross development in Oxfordshire—and we have had pushback on solar farms and other aspects of our electricity grid because of a lack of clarity in the planning system.
I am sure that when the Minister responds, she will come back to the NPPF, as I mentioned earlier, but many noble Lords have set out today in previous groups the limitations of relying on the NPPF. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the guidance that has been there on green spaces for many years has just not delivered.
We really need the strength of a statutory duty in this area, because guidance in the NPPF is not future-proofed. It is only guidance and does not refer to our targets. It is also worth saying that, in the way we have structured the amendments, it is a statutory duty but it is worded around “special regard”, which is a well-tested legislative approach. It is not saying the environment must be considered, because there may be other material considerations that, on balance, override that, but it is saying that it should carry weight within the planning system. This perspective is fully supported by the recent Corry review undertaken for Defra, which says that Defra
“needs to find a way of ensuring clarity, from a spatial perspective, for how the multitude of nature and planning strategies come together in a way which local authorities and combined authorities can understand and deliver, in partnership with regulators”.
The duty would provide exactly that: a golden thread running through the whole town and country planning system to ensure that it delivers for our national goals. We heard earlier in the debate about the future homes standard, which is coming up in the autumn. This duty would complement and work with that future homes standard to make sure that our targets are delivered.
It is this simplification and clarity that is going to help the Government in their target to build those 1.5 million new homes. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 stated:
“Local plans are currently too complex and detailed, which results in delays. Alongside introducing time limits on plan-making processes, the Government should produce standardised definitions and simplified guidance for local planning authorities. Simplification will also aid community engagement with local plans”.
Ultimately, that is helping local authorities and local areas deliver. It is all about the devolution of power because in many areas local authorities want to play their part, but they are being blocked—fundamentally because there is little integration and join up at a local level, whether that is local area energy planning, rollout or clarity in our planning system. This leads to an inconsistent approach—a patchwork quilt of responses across the many local authorities in terms of their approach to the environment and net zero. Again, a thread throughout the system would help fix that.
To summarise, this amendment would have important practical effect through ensuring that the town and country planning system delivers against the UK’s strategic objectives: 1.5 million homes that are fit for the future, unblocking and simplifying the system and, critically, giving local authorities the power to play their part, working in concert with the future home standard. Rather than the current piecemeal mentions of climate change and planning policy scattered through the legislation and the NPPF, there is a fantastic opportunity here for the Government to update the Bill to fully embed these targets within statutes and ensure that there is a coherent thread running through the whole planning system.
I have added my name to Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. For me, this is just another case in which there is work being done within industry, but we need a central function to co-ordinate these efforts and bring that consistency to reporting. However, I will not say any more at this stage.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, my Amendments 145B and 216 on overheating and climate change are in this group. This is an important group, and we generally support all the amendments that have been put forward.
We have just had the warmest summer on record—the warmest since 1884. Summer temperatures were 1.51 degrees above the long-term meteorological average and all five of the hottest summers have been since 2000. A summer as warm as the one we have just had is now 70 times more likely due to climate change. Obviously, continuous exposure to heat is a slow-motion killer and it is bad for our population. Our homes are not built—or fit—for the future, which is here now.
Buildings are responsible for over 40% of the energy demand in the UK. Some 80% of the buildings that will be occupied in 2050 have already undergone construction. Therefore, we must do more—all of us—to ensure that the homes we build and plan today are fit for the future. My Amendment 145B asks that, where a spatial development strategy includes provisions relating to housing, it also includes provisions for housing to meet recognised high efficiency and climate resilient standards, including but not limited to Passivhaus standards. This is with a view to reducing energy consumption, improving temperature controls and ventilations, particularly in response to extreme heat and contributing to our regional climate change mitigation and adaption objectives.
We have to do more. The Climate Change Committee has also been clear on these points. The UK will not meet its emission targets
“without near-complete decarbonisation of the housing stock”.
The houses we build are places of shelter. They need to provide long-term security, affordability, to be resilient and to cope in the warming climate. This is about asking simple questions about the houses we are building. Are they fit for the future?
Each new home that we build without proper standards leads to higher emissions, higher heating costs and greater vulnerability for those that live within them. Conversely, if we build to high efficiency standards, we can curb our emissions, reduce future retrofitting costs, protect families from the risk of heatwaves and reduce their energy bills.
The amendment refers to standards, particularly Passivhaus, but it allows flexibility; it is not restrictive, and it is not telling local authorities what they have to do, but it is for them to have regard to these things. Therefore, it is not prescriptive. We believe that is a good way of doing these things. It can save people money and give them a better quality of life. We think that this is a good amendment.
Amendment 216 proposes that every new home built in the country should meet a net-zero carbon building standard and be equipped with solar-powered generation as standard. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for adding their names. This not a radical measure; this is a reasoned, practical response, designed to support government policies which are either in development or are being developed but have not fully been put forward. Obviously, it covers exactly the same points. As we know, retrofitting is five times more expensive, which is just too expensive. We do not have the time, and we cannot afford to wait.
I acknowledge and thank the Labour Party for the work it is doing in this space. We look forward to the future homes standard and welcome the moves the Government are making on installing rooftop solar. There are various different strands and elements of policy that all need to come together. There is a warm homes plan, the overheating requirement that the Minister has referred to as well, and general building regulatory reforms around zero-carbon buildings. But a lot of these measures are either not here or not strictly laid down in planning law with the certainty that my amendment has.
While I welcome the measure the Government are taking, and I know there will be policies published in the autumn, I want to push the Government as to whether, when those policies come forward, they will have the level of certainty to meet the actions we need. My amendment hopes to solidify and support the work that the Government themselves are actively doing, and to strengthen some of those measures. My question to the Government is: if you are not supporting my measures, what certainty can you give us around the weight the measures you will put forward will have in law?
I give my support to Amendment 127, so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Krebs and Lord Grantchester. I will not speak to it for too long, but this is an essential amendment. As the noble Lord said, it puts a golden thread through this stuff. “Have regard to” is good wording. This stuff needs to happen. All too often, these issues are ignored or set aside and do not have the clear weight within planning law that they need to. Therefore, we welcome this amendment. This needs to change and it is a sensible and well-reasoned amendment.
I am in favour of Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would introduce a carbon assessment, as required for larger developments. We are no longer blind to one of the most significant drivers of climate emissions. The construction sector is responsible for a quarter of the UK’s carbon footprint and that is set to rise. These emissions remain largely invisible within the planning system, and we need a proper system to take better account of them and to regulate them, so we also support this as a sensible amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 127, which I have put my name to, ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and to support the other amendments in this group.
I was glad to hear both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referring to the work of the Climate Change Committee. It is so important that we understand what the expert advice is from our statutory body, and so I will quote a few sentences from the April report on climate adaptation:
“The UK’s preparations for climate change are inadequate… In terms of adaptation delivery, we do not find evidence to score a single outcome as ‘good’”.
About buildings, it says that
“6.3 million properties in England are in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea, and surface water. This is predicted to rise to around 8 million (25% of all properties) by 2050 … Towns and cities will become increasingly hot, with a large fraction of current buildings at risk of reaching uncomfortable and potentially dangerous temperatures in summer heatwaves”—
a point made so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
In table 1 of the summary of the adaptation committee’s report, there is a score card for delivery and implementation on the one hand and policies and plans on the other. Under “Planning system prioritises climate resilience”, for delivery and implementation it says, “Unable to evaluate”—there is no evidence—and for policies and plans it says, “Insufficient”. For “Buildings do not overheat”, on delivery it says, “Unable to evaluate”, and under policies it says, “Limited”. For “Buildings are prepared for flooding”, it says “Partial”—that is a good score—for both delivery and for policies and plans. For “Buildings are resilient to other climate risks”, it says “Unable to evaluate” for both delivery and for policies and plans. Here we have it, from the statutory expert advisers to the Government, that we are not doing enough to prepare our houses, public buildings and commercial buildings for the impact of climate change.
For me, the remarkable thing is that none of this is new. I chaired the adaptation committee between 2009 and 2017, and we were saying exactly the same things 15 years ago. Nobody is listening. It would be nice to hear from the Minister that this Government are listening and understand that this is not just some pie-in-the-sky thing for the future but urgent and needs to be addressed now.
Another important point was made in the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, when he said that things may be written in the NPPF but what we need is to strengthen the commitments by putting them firmly into the statute book. I listened to some of the debate earlier about green spaces, sport and recreation, and all these wonderful facilities in new developments, and we heard reassuring words from the Government. However, when I look at the new housing estates around Oxford, where I live, they are nothing like that. They are simply identikit houses, jammed in as close together as possible, with no green space, no recreation facilities, no climate resilience and no plans to deal with overheating—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said.
There are very simple things that could be done. If you go, as I sometimes do, to the south of France and rent a house, the house will have shutters. In the middle of the day, when it is hot, you close the shutters and they keep the heat out. Why are we not building new houses with shutters as a mandatory requirement? It would not cost much money and it would be a simple, effective tool to reduce the chance of overheating.
I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government have listened to the report of the adaptation committee of the Climate Change Committee and will do something about where it scored “Inadequate” or nul points under the various assessments, and that the Government are minded to firm up what is guidance and make it statutorily an obligation.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127 and 216.
Amendment 216, to which I have put my name, was led by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and concerns the zero-carbon standard for new homes. If the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, feels that the adaptation committee reports are cyclical and the same and getting nowhere then the zero-carbon standard discussion feels like Groundhog Day, to be frank. We got so close to having a zero-carbon home commitment in 2015. We were within two weeks of the commitment coming into effect, at a time when the housebuilders, in spite of some initial grumping, had tooled up to deliver it, when all of a sudden the Chancellor, George Osborne, stepped in at the last minute and summarily cancelled it. It was the biggest letdown for everybody. That meant that, for 10 years, we built houses which could have been zero carbon, significantly contributed to reducing our carbon footprint, helped people have warmer homes and helped the communities have lower bills—but we did not. We have lost 10 years of delivery. We have to now grip that and make sure that we do not lose any more years.
The current policy under the future homes standard requires new homes only to be zero-carbon ready by 2025. That does not go far enough. It also does not require anything on solar panels, which this amendment addresses. I know that there has been a bit of a shift in thinking within government over the last few months on the question of distributed solar. I press the Minister to tell us what improvements we are expecting to see on the future homes standard to reverse the harm that was done by Mr Osborne.
Before I sit down, I commend Amendment 127, in the name of the noble Lord, Ravensdale, which would give clear mitigation and adaptation climate change duties to planning authorities. I very much endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said. I was honoured to serve, at least for a brief period, on the adaptation committee. I helped get the legislation through this House to create it and then promptly did a runner after I had been appointed to it—as they say, it was a good idea at the time.
The whole role of planning authorities in climate change is absolutely crucial, not just for mitigation but for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. I draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to a recent Local Government Association report which went out extensively to wide consultation. As a result of that consultation with a whole range of consultees, not only local government authorities, it came back with the proposition that there should be statutory powers and duties for local authorities on action for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
There was a bit of schadenfreude for me in that. When we originally got the climate Act through, it prescribed roles for local authorities. In fact, it had a reporting arrangement for local authorities that meant that they had a statutory requirement to report. That was cancelled very rapidly when the Conservative Government came in in 2010. We are now in a position where, although many local authorities are very committed to the idea of their place in mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, they are under no duress to report on that. The only thing they have to do is that, if they are asked by government to report, they are required to do so—but only if asked. That strikes me as a very strange way of keeping track of delivery on this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, the most recent report by the adaptation committee assessing the nation’s level of preparedness to adapt to the impacts of climate change was very gloomy about the lack of progress, and quite rightly so. Adaptation is the Cinderella, the poor relation of the whole climate change effort. It is not going to get any better; it is going to get worse, with heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods—it is being so cheerful at this time of night that keeps me going. Amendment 127, to clarify the climate change mitigation and adaptation duties of planning authorities, or something like it, is very important. I hope that the Minister will consider it seriously.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale; I think it is very important. I want to pick up what my noble friend said: many local authorities are very keen to develop policies in relation to climate change, particularly on this very important issue of adaptation. My noble friend will have seen recently that some local authorities have put into reverse any commitment towards net zero and climate change policies. My question to the House is: what do we do about this? It is not fashionable at the moment to mention climate change, for some remarkable reason, but I think it is the most important and biggest issue we face. What are we to do if local authorities are saying, “No, we’ll turn our backs on this. We’ll commit ourselves to fossil fuels. We will develop policies that are very distinct—in opposition almost—to issues around climate change”? My advice to the Government is that this is not acceptable. If we are really serious about net zero and if we are serious about climate change adaptation as well as mitigation, we have to have a much greater concerted effort, in which local government clearly has to play an important part. That is why I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is so important.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on this important group of amendments, which touch on the crucial matters of climate change and, more specifically, overheating, energy efficiency and net-zero carbon developments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have tabled these amendments. Their recognition of the pressing challenge that climate change presents and the role that planning and development must play in addressing it is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation for the sentiment behind the amendments in their name and the desire to ensure that our built environment is resilient and sustainable in the face of changing climate.
We on these Benches recognise the need to address climate change and overheating risks in our built environment. However, it is also essential that we balance these aims with the need to avoid introducing overly burdensome mandates and excessive regulation that could hinder much-needed housing delivery, achieving the 1.5 million homes and economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address these important and pressing issues, ensuring that we both protect our environment and support sustainable development and homes that are much needed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to climate change and overheating. It is obviously the biggest issue facing not just the Government and the country but the world. I turn first to Amendments 125, 126, 181 and 216, which concern efforts to adapt new homes and buildings to account for the risk of overheating and the need to drive energy efficiency in new homes. The Government agree that action is needed to address these risks, but we must be mindful of the existing regulatory and legislative regimes that underpin action in these areas.
The building regulations already set specific performance targets for new homes and non-domestic buildings. Compliance with these regulations is mandatory. Aspects of building construction concerned with heating, energy efficiency and cooling are best addressed through these regulations, which the Government are using to make progress on these vital issues. For example, in 2022, a new part of the building regulations was introduced, part O, which is specifically designed to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. We are already considering whether part O and its associated guidance can be improved, having run a call for evidence as part of the consultation on the future homes and building standards to seek views on this.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I appreciate the Minister’s response and that he has highlighted a number of areas of planning policy where this is mentioned. But the point I was trying to make was that there is no central duty that is tying all those areas of policy together into a framework and having that thread running throughout the planning system. Does he agree that this is needed?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It is something that we should look at. The warm homes plan, for example, which will be published in October—in just a few weeks’ time—will look at our approach to heating in homes and the mitigation that we need to implement for climate change. We are looking at this and everything will continue to be under review.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can the Minister explain? I do not understand why he has not referred to the intended provisions of new Clause 12D(10) describing the content of a spatial development strategy. The Government are proposing that:
“A spatial development strategy must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”.
Can the Minister not say with some certainty that the effect of that would be to ensure that mitigation and adaptation to climate change do form a central part of plan-making?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Climate change mitigation does play a big part in all the planning arrangements that we are going to introduce. It is one of the central points of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we actually take those aspects into consideration.
I turn to Amendment 145B. It is vital that new homes are energy efficient and designed to mitigate the risk associated with overheating and spatial development strategies, particularly as climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme heat events. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act already allows strategic planning authorities to include policies requiring housing to meet standards on energy efficiency and climate resilience in their spatial development strategies, provided they are of strategic importance to the strategy area. As I mentioned previously, the spatial development strategies are intended to be high-level documents. Energy-efficiency and climate resilience standards are more detailed matters that are better suited to a local plan.
We intend to go further this autumn. We will set more ambitious energy-efficiency and carbon-emission requirements for new homes through the future homes and building standards. These standards will set new homes on a path that moves away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels. Homes built to these standards will use sustainable energy sources for their heating and hot water. This means they will be zero-carbon ready and will need no future work to achieve zero-carbon emissions when the electricity grid is fully decarbonised.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for proposing Amendment 180, which would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for developments of a specified size as part of planning applications. However, to reiterate a point I have made throughout the debate, the National Planning Policy Framework already makes it clear that the planning system must support the transition to a low-carbon future. It calls for a proactive approach to both mitigating and adapting to climate change, in line with the long-term goals set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.
In our consultation on changes to the framework last summer, we sought views on whether carbon could be reliably measured and accounted for in plan-making and decision-making. We wanted to understand the sector’s readiness and to identify any practical barriers to the wider use of carbon assessments in planning. The feedback we received was wide-ranging and constructive. Having carefully considered those views, we concluded that it would not be appropriate at this stage to introduce a mandatory requirement for carbon assessments, given the current state of evolution of assessment techniques and the need to consider very carefully the impact on applicants where additional information such as this is mandated.
However, we recognise the need for greater clarity and guidance. That is why we have committed to updating the planning practice guidance to help both decision-makers and developers make better use of available tools to reduce embodied and operational carbon in the built environment. We also acknowledge that embodied carbon is not just a challenge for buildings; it is a systemic issue across the construction and supply sector. As wider decarbonisation efforts take hold and industries evolve, we expect to see a natural reduction in the embodied carbon of buildings over time. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, may I ask a small question? With regard to overheating, which was so eloquently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, do the Government have any measurement of what proportion of houses that are being built now, as we speak, have within them measures to prevent overheating? Further, when all this new guidance that we have heard about comes into place, what proportion of homes will, in the future, from now onwards, incorporate measures to protect against overheating?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
To the first part of the noble Lord’s question, there has been an energy follow-up survey, which said that energy-efficiency measures that have been taken over recent years have not significantly increased the risk of overheating. On his second point, I will write to the noble Lord and give him the specific answer to his question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been another rich and full debate, and I thank the Minister for his answers and everyone who has taken part in this debate. It will, I am sure, please the Whips to know that I am not going to run through the whole lot, but I want to pick out a couple of highlights.
The cri de coeur from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was “nobody listened”. I cannot help feeling that—we are here rather late in the evening, talking about what are truly matters of life and death, and this is perhaps not the ideal way to do it, but we are doing the best that we possibly can. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for failing to acknowledge his signing—I think I lost a page somewhere in the general pile of a very long evening. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, particularly for picking up the embodied carbon point, which is so crucial, as we have just been discussing. I particularly want to highlight, too, what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said in reminding us how close we got to net zero-carbon homes—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
May I revert to being the Whip and ask the noble Baroness to move the decision? It is not about rehearsing the whole of the debate, which is what is happening, but about getting to the point of what she needs to be saying.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am going to point to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said—how close we got, and a really bad decision was made. How do we make good decisions really quickly?
Okay, I will come to what the Minister said. It relied on building regulations and compliance with those, but we know what is being built now is not complying even with the inadequate regulations we have now, and that issue needs to be discussed. The final point I want to make is this: the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said that we cannot do anything to interfere with much-needed housing delivery. We have to build houses that people can safely live in. That has to be an absolute prerequisite. But, in the meantime, I—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I do not think I said that we cannot do anything. It is all about having a balance.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Planning Acts legal challenges: reduction in time limit(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).(2) In section 61N (legal challenges in relation to neighbourhood development orders)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(b) in subsection (2)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(c) in subsection (3)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(3) In section 106C (legal challenges relating to development consent obligations)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(b) in subsection (1A) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”; (c) in subsection (2)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(d) in subsection (3)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(4) In section 287 (proceedings for questioning validity of development plans and certain schemes and orders), in subsection (2B), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(5) In section 288 (proceedings for questioning the validity of other orders, decisions and directions), in subsection (4B), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(6) In section 289 (appeals to High Court relating to certain notices), after subsection (4B), insert—“(4C) An appeal under this section may not be made without the leave of the High Court.(4D) An application for leave for the purposes of subsection (4C) must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day after the decision of the Secretary of State is made.”.(7) In section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (proceedings for questioning the validity of other orders, decisions and directions), in subsection (3A), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(8) In section 22 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (validity of decisions as to applications), in subsection (2B), for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(9) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent)—(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(b) in subsection (2)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(c) in subsection (3)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(d) in subsection (4)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(e) in subsection (5)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(f) in subsection (6)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”;(g) in subsection (7)(b) for “6 weeks” substitute “21 days”.(10) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a decision made before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would reduce the time-limit for legal challenges to certain orders from 6 weeks to 21 days, in line with the deadline for an application for permission to appeal. Transitional provision is further made to ensure that the amendments made by the new Clause apply prospectively only. This amendment extends Amendment 128 to proceedings brought under section 22 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his outstanding work in relation to judicial review reform. It has clearly had a big impact on the Bill. At the risk of quoting the noble Lord to himself, he said in our earlier debate on this, which seems a long time ago, in relation to judicial review, that his review concludedusb that
“evidence demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of judicial reviews of NSIPs failed. It follows from this that the problem is not with the law, nor is it about ‘activist judges’ … It is about the time it takes for bad JRs to meet their doom”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; col. 2102.]
Obviously, the proposals in the Bill go quite some way towards meeting the noble Lord’s recommendations in the review. All I am trying to do here, with some probing amendments, is to test whether we could go a little further, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting his name to my Amendments 129 and 130. These, and Amendment 135D, attempt to replicate restriction appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has certified the application as being totally without merit in relation to decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the listed buildings Act and the hazardous substances Act. Again, the noble Lord asked the Government at Second Reading for clarification as to whether the changes here would be made
“only to infrastructure judicial reviews or to judicial and statutory reviews in planning generally”.—[Official Report, 25/6/25; col. 318.]
It seems to me that there is a compelling case for doing that, and I hope my noble friend may be positive about this.
My Amendment 127 concerns the period within which legal challenges to planning decisions may be brought. It proposes the current six-week time limit be reduced to 21 days. I have used 21 days as a starting point as it reflects the standard time limit for civil appeals. The purpose is really to probe whether the six-week period continues to serve its intended purpose. I am aware that the noble Lord, on balance, in his independent review, did not support the shortening of time limits, but I would be interested in the Minister’s response on this.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I start by speaking in support of Amendments 129 and 130 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and, indeed, of his Amendment 135D, which would extrapolate those amendments to the hazardous substances Act.
The background, in brief, is that Clause 12 of the Bill, following the recommendations of my independent review on legal challenges to NSIPs, removes the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to judicial review permission applications which are totally without merit. My independent review did not opine on whether that should be rolled out to other kinds of planning proceedings, as that was outside the remit of my review, but it is, of course, within the remit of this House and this Bill. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said in relation to rolling it out to other kinds of planning proceedings. To my mind, there is no meaningful distinction of context between a nationally significant infrastructure project and, for example, the granting of planning permission for 2,000 homes. Both are of fundamental importance to the objectives of the planning system.
So I firmly support those amendments. I also support the other amendments associated with those two. The one exception, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has foreshadowed, is Amendment 128. I thought long and hard in the independent review about whether the time limits for judicial review should be shortened. My starting point was that they should be, but, on reflection, having taken soundings from a wide range of stakeholders, I concluded that that may end up being counterproductive. If there is too little time, claimants and their advisers might feel that it is better as a precaution to bring a judicial review claim and then review it and repent at leisure. In this context, I felt that the old adage, “I would have said less, but I did not have the time”, was applicable. It was a finely balanced conclusion, however. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, it would indeed be interesting to hear the Government’s view.
I next speak to Amendment 168 in my name. That amendment would stop the clock on the deadline for implementing a planning permission while a judicial review was under way. Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act have the effect that, for a full planning permission, one ordinarily has three years to commence development from the date of permission; for outline, it is the same period—three years—to bring forward an application for reserved matters.
Currently, however, it can take the best part of three years for a judicial review to run its course in cases that go to the Supreme Court, certainly, and even to the Court of Appeal. The delays in the planning court are such that even to get a permission decision in judicial review can take the best part of half a year. During that time, no rational developer, funder or land promoter would spend money, when a planning permission was at risk. That has real consequences for the status of planning permissions. I am aware of a number of planning permissions which have been put at risk because they have, in essence, been timed out. There was one well-known Supreme Court planning case a few years ago where the land promoter had to do a dummy reserved matters application just to keep the permission alive. Such applications can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and sometimes more—wasted money which could be better used; for example, in providing a high amount of affordable housing contributions.
It is also an incentive to claimants to bring a judicial review, because claimants and their well-honed lawyers know that you can cause stress and distress to commercial parties by bringing a judicial review, threatening to tire them out and then seeking to extract undue concessions. I urge the Government seriously to consider this amendment. I do not understand what political capital, or any kind of capital, could be lost by accepting it. There are not really any downsides and there are an awful lot of upsides.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendment 128. I am uncertain of the provenance of this amendment, but it is certainly well aligned with the Government’s agenda. It seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 12 of the Bill, which apply to nationally important infrastructure projects and other projects, notably those sponsored by local authorities. It seeks to limit the time available to make pleas against planning orders, reducing it from six weeks or 42 days to 21 days. I support this part of the amendment, which is entirely reasonable. More significantly, it proposes that an appeal to the High Court under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may not be made without leave of the court.
At an earlier stage of Committee, I spoke in favour of Amendment 52, which sought to limit the scope of judicial reviews that are liable to frustrate nationally important infrastructure projects. The proposal of that amendment is to bring the development orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects into Parliament. After a proposal has passed parliamentary scrutiny, then, by dint of an Act of Parliament, it should become legally incontestable and therefore it should not be subject to the hazards of a judicial review. Parliament must not be overburdened by such legislation; nevertheless, local development orders require greater protection against frivolous legal challenges.
I described the chicanery that obstructed the plans to eliminate a bottleneck on a major trunk road, the A303, where it passes close to Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. The legal wrangling seemed almost interminable. The first grant of development consent for the bypass in 2020 was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. Then it was given a green light again by the DfT, which reissued the development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again because of another series of judicial reviews which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024.
Undeterred by these two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court whether they could appeal again, but on 29 January this year the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the grounds that the challenge did not raise any arguable points of law. However, this decision was immaterial, since within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel which would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was made three and a half years after the development consent had been given and after a very full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their cause but by dint of legal chicanery and delay. Moreover, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.
It is worth noting the circumstances that made the project unaffordable. They were attributable largely to the delays that had been caused by the appeals. Major work was being undertaken to improve the A303 but, by the time the legal issues had been settled, that work had been completed and the contractors had moved on. To call them back in order to complete the project would have entailed inordinate costs in re-establishing the project. Amendment 128 is wholly reasonable and, I think, long overdue, and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am really concerned about Amendment 128. The reason why I say that is that in this Bill, at the hands of the Government, we have already had an attack on democracy in terms of substantial decisions being removed from democratically elected councillors, and now it feels as if we are having an attack on communities. The reason why I say that is that six weeks from a determination to bringing about putting in a challenge when you believe that something may have been done unlawfully is already pretty short.
There are a number of factors. A judicial review probably costs between £100,000 and £150,000 just to get the process going, and it can be quite substantial in itself for a community to get that funding together. Normally you would do a pre-action protocol letter that the courts expect the Government—indeed, both sides—to comply with. Quite a lot of that will involve significant extractions of information from the Government. As a consequence, three weeks would end up timing out the opportunity for communities, which are concerned that something is being rammed through, to have a genuine opportunity to challenge it. This and previous Administrations will know that quite often—I will not say all the time, but there have been significant times—the courts have found the Government’s proceedings to be unlawful. That might be frustrating for the Government, but nevertheless there is still an opportunity for communities to do that.
So I am very concerned about halving the time for communities to consider how they might challenge a particular decision. We have seen that in a variety of ways, whether it is about housing, aspects of energy infrastructure or transport. I will not pretend that the Government will not often get frustrated, but nevertheless I think Amendment 128 in particular would still be an unnecessary adjustment. Frankly, although my noble friend Lord Banner is sympathetic to Amendment 128, as he said in his speech, I am delighted that he did not actually put his name to it.
Building on that, we then get into other considerations about going to the Court of Appeal. I have a lot more sympathy with the other amendments that have been put in this group in order not to have never-ending regulatory challenges through the courts. I used to represent Suffolk Coastal, and I know that Sizewell C in particular has had a lot of challenges that seem never ending and somewhat ridiculous, so I have some sympathy for that. However, I also have experience as a Secretary of State, not necessarily on infrastructure but on other judicial matters, where a judge in the High Court has ruled against the Government—despite, by the way, it having been through both Houses of Parliament in determining a particular aspect of legislation—and then initially said, “And you can’t appeal to the Court of Appeal”. There is a process that allows the Government, or indeed anyone, currently to go around that and just say, “That’s a bit ridiculous. You found against us and now, funnily enough, you’re actually accepting that you do not want your decision to be challenged”. That is where I have a bit of concern on where that particular aspect may go.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, happened to refer to the A303. I used to live quite near the A303 and while I am not trying to do a Second Reading speech—I am conscious of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—I just want to remind noble Lords of some of the amendments that have already been put to this Bill trying to limit the number of different reasons why a judicial review can be brought on infrastructure project.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The supposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seems to be that the consideration of a project by those that might oppose it is subsequent to the admission of a development order. In fact, usually the opposition long predates that, and so the limitation that we are proposing is not a denial of the opportunity to consider and to oppose a project.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
What is being proposed is drastically reducing the amount of time if anyone wants to bring a judicial review. I have already mentioned the barriers of raising money, assuming you can raise that. Perhaps this will be a change, but the High Court will not like this. It will absolutely kick off. Right now, Governments really struggle to not do the whole amount of—forgive me, I have forgotten quite the phrase, it is disclosure but there is a particular phrase that goes with candour. But if that is the way and we are going to go with three weeks, then honestly the delays will get worse. Be careful what one wishes for in regard to three weeks versus six weeks. I think this is an unnecessary amendment, whereas I am somewhat supportive of the other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has tabled.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their careful thought and experience in tabling these amendments. On Amendment 135D, I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in seeking to restrict appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has deemed an application to be totally without merit. This is, of course, a delicate balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing the courts from being encumbered by hopeless claims. I am grateful to him for placing this important matter before your Lordships’ Committee.
Similarly, the noble Lord’s Amendments 357, 358 and 360 raise pertinent questions about the commencement provisions of various clauses, particularly in relation to the new measures on planning and legal challenges. It is often the case that commencement by regulation can leave uncertainty. The proposal to provide for an automatic commencement two months after Royal Assent is, at the very least, a reminder of the need for clarity and timeliness in the law. These points merit careful reflection, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I now turn to Amendment 168, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. This amendment addresses a very practical difficulty—namely, the risk that development consents are lost due to time running out during the course of judicial or statutory reviews. By stopping the clock, the amendment would ensure that the permission does not simply expire while litigation is pending. This is important not only for developers and investors who require certainty but for local communities who deserve clarity about the projects affecting them. Without such a measure, there is a danger that meritless legal challenges might be deployed as a tactic to run down the clock, thereby frustrating legitimate development. I believe my noble friend is right to highlight this problem, and I warmly welcome his amendment.
I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their thoughtful contributions. We on these Benches will listen very closely to the Minister’s response on these matters.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group. I turn first to Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which seeks to reduce the time limit for bringing a legal challenge against planning decisions from six weeks to 21 days.
Judicial and statutory review of planning decisions are already subject to a compressed six-week window within which a claim may be brought, compared with the three-month time limit in most judicial reviews. It is the Government’s view that the current time limit strikes the right balance between providing certainty for developers in local communities and preserving access to justice. Further shortened, the time limit for bringing a claim would risk restricting the public’s ability to hold the Government and planning authorities to account on planning decisions.
A shorter time limit would also leave less time for meaningful engagement between the parties to potentially resolve matters out of court or to narrow the scope of any claim. Claimants who fear being timed out may also feel compelled to lodge protective claims just in case. This could inadvertently lead to greater delays due to a potential increase in the number of challenges.
The Government are taking forward a wider package of reforms to improve the efficiency of the planning system, including measures to speed up decisions and encourage early engagement. These changes will have a far greater impact than trimming a few weeks off the judicial review timetable. While I recognise my noble friend’s intention to reduce uncertainty in the planning system, I believe the three-week time saving from the shortened time limit is outweighed by the risk of restricting access to justice and the practical implications of such a change. Therefore, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
I turn next to Amendments 129, 130 and 135D, also tabled by my noble friend, which seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects that of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008.
The measures in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence that made clear the case for change regarding these major infrastructure projects. We currently do not have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. We will therefore need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of the changes made to Clause 12 will be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
With regards to the amendment, which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court, this is not necessary, as the process is set out clearly in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his Amendments 357, 358 and 360 concerning the commencement of Clause 12 and the new judicial review provisions which he is proposing. The amendments seek to ensure that these provisions all come into force two months after Royal Assent. With regard to Clause 12, this requires changes to the relevant civil procedures, rules and practice directions. The current power, which allows this measure to be commenced by regulation, is designed to ensure that the necessary provisions are in place before the changes come into force. I reassure my noble friend that the Government intend to commence the measure by regulation as soon as practicable following Royal Assent. With regards to my noble friend’s amendment linked to his proposed new provisions, I think he would agree that this amendment is no longer required as the related provisions are now being withdrawn. For these reasons, I kindly ask that my noble friend withdraws his amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 168, which would extend the time period to commence a planning permission if the permission was subject to judicial proceedings. The Government agree with the policy intention behind this amendment. The statutory commencement provisions under Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are an important and long-standing part of the legal framework for planning permissions to ensure that permissions are implemented in a timely manner, and lapsed if they have not begun within the prescribed time period.
However, we recognise that it would be unfair on the applicant if judicial proceedings—where the court has confirmed the lawfulness of the permission—led to delays that mean that the commencement period of the lawful permission is effectively curtailed. Legal challenges on the validity of the permission should not seek to time out the practical implementation of the permission. That is why Section 91(3A) to (3B) was introduced to automatically extend the commencement period for a formal planning permission by a further year if there were judicial proceedings questioning the validity of a planning permission. This extension of a year is sufficient to cover the typical period for a planning case at the High Court, so applicants, where their planning permission has been lawfully upheld, should not lose out from the delay caused by the legal challenge. In light of these points, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not press his amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
I thank the Minister for those comments. Does he accept that if it is only one year to cover the typical period of High Court proceedings, that gives unsuccessful claimants in the High Court an incentive to perpetuate the proceedings by taking it to the Court of Appeal and potentially thereafter to the Supreme Court to drag out the threat to the implementation of the permission in the way that I described?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am not a legal expert on these issues, but I am more than prepared to sit down with the noble Lord to discuss this specific point. We are extending it by a full year, but I think he was wanting to stop it; is that right?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
That means it could go on and on anyway, but it is a point that perhaps we could discuss if the noble Lord wants to do so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I was very grateful to my noble friend for his very responsive wind-up. My noble friend said that the Government would need to consider Amendments 129, 130 and 135D further, and I am very grateful for that. On Amendment 128, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support, but I did not get much other support around the Committee. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey: this is not an attack on democracy. As someone with mainly an NHS background, I am only too well aware of the importance of judicial review in the case of local people concerned that NHS bodies have not followed proper procedures. I am afraid that there are too many cases, and I have too many very rich lawyer friends who have made a lot of money out of the NHS’s cavalier approach sometimes. I do understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but I was trying to press whether we could speed up some of the processes. However, I will obviously reflect on what has been said.
Finally, on Amendments 357, 358 and 360, my noble friend said that commencement depended on changes to civil procedure rules, which will be done as soon as practicable. I am trying to think back to what it meant when I said at the Dispatch Box, “as soon as practicable”. I think it is better than “as soon as possible”, and I will take that as a win. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Enforcement of planning decisions(1) A local planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the Planning Acts shall have a duty to—(a) enforce planning conditions, and(b) enforce the removal of any structure that has not received planning permission.(2) At the discretion of the local planning authority, minor infringements may be excepted from the duty to enforce.(3) Minor infringements under subsection (2) may not include any environmental, climate or nature-related conditions.(4) The costs of enforcement by a local planning authority shall be recovered by the application of a penalty payment regime.(5) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with local planning authorities, lay down a schedule of penalty charges.(6) The schedule under subsection (5) must—(a) reflect the full costs of enforcement by a local planning authority, and(b) be reviewed annually to reflect changes in costs.(7) The Secretary of State must lay down a schedule giving examples of what might be deemed as a minor infringement under subsection (2).”
Lord Teverson (LD)
I remind the Committee that I am chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, but I am also a director of Wessex Development and Investments Limited, a development company, so I am on both sides of planning and nature issues.
This is a probing amendment but quite a specific one. It comes on to the area of planning enforcement. Generally, the planning system is meant to be a permissive one; unless there is good reason to stop development, it should happen. Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system is discretionary and proportionate, but it also makes the point that enforcement of the planning system is there to maintain public confidence. It is that area that I want to concentrate on this evening.
We will all know of residents who are concerned that people move ahead with developments that are wrong, without planning permission. They feel that those individuals are cheating the system and moving ahead of other people who are trying to go through a system legally and properly. That can cause a great deal of discontent. At the moment, planning enforcement is not a duty of local authorities. When I have talked about this area with local authorities, they have made it very clear that they are not funded to enforce, so it is not an area always given a great deal of emphasis because there is no return.
One area that I came across with one of my own principal local authorities is that, with regard to environmental conditions on planning, the track record was that 40% of those environmental conditions were never actually implemented over quite a long period of time. That is why, in this amendment, I have stressed environmental, climate and nature conditions on planning that are widely ignored in development and, because they are relatively minor on individual cases, are not enforced. However, on a broader scale, because that is the case, they are a major threat to biodiversity and net gain in nature and all the things that we need to do to more forward the environment and climate agenda. As we all know, with the built environment, if we do not get it right to begin with then that is a problem for the length and total age of the building.
I am trying to find out from the Government how we get out of this issue. On the whole, local authorities do not want to enforce. I am clear that, on other things, such as minor infringements that are not to do with nature, we do not want a system that looks like a police state, but we have the balance wrong at the moment, particularly around planning conditions that seem minor but are important on a macro scale. That is my question for the Minister: how do we get out of this? I believe that there is a way forward on this if we can reflect the costs on people who do not comply with planning, if those particular issues then have to be enforced. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before we proceed, the Government Whip will make a brief statement about the progress of business.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Deputy Chairman of Committees. Just to confirm, we will be going to target this evening, so I urge brevity from everybody in making speeches, so that we can make progress and get through the business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am tempted to make a 10-minute speech in response to that. If the Government decide they want to go to such a ridiculous length, it really is for the Government to—
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise. I should have added that it was agreed through the usual channels, with the Front Benches, that that would be an appropriate way to arrange business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I accept that it has been agreed by the usual channels, but this is a revising Chamber and we are supposed to be looking at a serious Bill and taking its provisions seriously. If the Government want to get through 20 groups today then it will take the time it takes. None the less, when it comes to Amendment 135G, I shall be brief.
The main reason I hear for planning processes taking longer than they should is that planning authorities take longer than they should. The Government should have the power to do something about that, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing their amendments to the attention of the Committee. They have raised a number of important points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister addressing both noble Lords’ concerns.
I turn to the amendments in my name. The purpose of Amendment 135HZG is to reduce costs and delays in the planning system by putting beyond doubt in legislation the principles that currently rely on case law. Where planning permission has already been granted and remains extant, decisions on subsequent planning applications relating to detailed matters, whether determined by an officer or a committee, should not reopen issues that were settled in the original planning permission. This matters because uncertainty in the system not only increases costs for applicants but creates unnecessary duplication of effort for planning authorities and applicants. Greater clarity will enable both sides to proceed with confidence, efficiency and speed.
Amendment 135HZH, in my name and that of noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is a probing amendment intended to test whether the planning system provides sufficient certainty once a permission has been granted and to explore how necessary changes prompted by new national legislation might be handled without reopening matters that have already been settled. The principle of finality is essential, particularly where significant work has already been undertaken and applications are well advanced. This amendment invites the Government to consider whether clearer statutory guidance on finality could help improve efficiency and reduce delay.
Finally, Amendment 185SE, tabled in my name, aims to provide clarity to the planning system, so that project delays are minimised where legislative changes necessitate modifications to an already approved permission—for instance, as we discussed earlier today, legislation that might require solar cells on all new homes.
In such circumstances, such modifications should be deemed to have planning permission in principle. It is vital, because projects can be significantly delayed and costs increased, and developers are required to seek fresh planning permissions simply to comply with new legislation that has come about after they receive their original planning permission. By ensuring that those modifications are covered in principle, we can safeguard progress while maintaining the integrity of the planning system.
If we are to achieve the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes, the planning system needs to deliver. These three amendments are guided by the same underlying principle. Clarity and certainty in planning law reduce unnecessary delay, avoid wasteful duplication and allow both applicants and authorities to focus their energies on what should be their priority, which is delivering high-quality developments of high-quality homes that support our residents and our communities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I had not realised what the noble Lord was going to say from the Dispatch Box, but I wish to support his Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH What he could have said—but did not—was that there is almost an interaction with the previous group, in that sometimes there is a perverse incentive to add delay to a process to run down the clock. However, in this case, the noble Lord could have said that, as a result of those delays, a whole series of new studies would need to be remade. For instance, ecology studies may last for only two or three years so may be triggered once more, and they in turn can only be created at certain times of the year—in the spring, for example. The combination effect, in respect not just of the previous group but of this group, means that the delays could be even longer, so I strongly support the noble Lord. Finality and certainty are important, and I support him not only for the reasons he gives but for the avoidance of interference with the previous set of amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teverson has raised an important aspect of the planning process in his amendment on planning enforcement. Planning enforcement can be a neglected part of the planning system, partly because it is not a statutory function but a discretionary one, and as such is not necessarily funded to the extent that it ought to be. Effective enforcement is vital in the planning process so that everyone—the developer, the council and local people—can have trust that what has been agreed will be fulfilled.
I will give noble Lords one example from my role as a councillor, when I was contacted about a housing development which is adjacent to a motorway. A resident raised the concern that the developers were not adhering to the agreed siting of units. Planning enforcement went on site to investigate and discovered that the construction was undermining the motorway banking, which would have had catastrophic consequences if it had continued. A stop notice was issued and the matter resolved; I should say that this was a major housing developer.
Enforcement is key for the integrity of the planning system, for the conditions that are applied to a planning application when it is given consent and for residents who have asked questions about its impact. It is therefore key to retaining the trust of residents, as my noble friend has said, and so that democratic decision-making can be relied on to check that planning conditions are properly fulfilled. That requires adequate funding. I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government are of a mind to make a move from a discretionary function to a statutory one, which would then be adequately funded for the very important role that planning enforcement plays.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Lucas and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments. I turn first to Amendment 131, which would place a duty on local planning authorities to take enforcement action in relation to certain breaches of planning control and introduce a system of penalty payments.
The Government recognise the frustration that many people feel when they see development carried out without planning permission. We understand therefore that effective enforcement is vital in maintaining public trust and confidence in the planning system.
While I can appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, it represents a fundamental change to the enforcement system and it is not something which could be introduced without very careful and detailed consideration, including consultation with interested parties. Furthermore, I believe that the current approach to enforcement represents the right balance. It gives local planning authorities discretion about when and how they use their enforcement powers. This flexibility is important, as local planning authorities are best placed to consider the circumstances of each case and reach a balanced and informed decision. While, as I have said, I think the current approach is the right one, I assure the Committee that we will keep the operation of the enforcement system under review.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I may have misunderstood what he said, but I thought the Minister was saying they were reducing the power of certain statutory consultees. I know we are probably advancing the consideration of the Bill, because we are going to deal with this next week, but the entirety of Part 3 creates entirely new burdens for an entirely new set of quangos. It is actually going to slow things down. I just wondered whether, in the light of this consideration of Part 3, he might like to review what he has said. If we truly are going to reduce the veto that these statutory undertakings have, then that is absolutely to be welcomed. It is just that the thrust of this Bill is going in the completely the other direction.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I would not accept that. It has to be a balance between what we can do to make things more flexible and ensuring that we have the right kind of infrastructure to lead to the growth we want in the local economy. We need a flexible system and what we are trying to devise here is that.
Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH cover the important but technical issue of decision-makers revisiting matters which have been established through the grant of planning permission when determining applications for supplementary consents, such as reserved matter approvals. I recognise that these are probing amendments, and I understand the concern about matters being revisited when they should not be. We want to see supplementary consents determined as swiftly as possible. Case law has long established that supplementary consents must focus on the specific matters directly related to the consent and not revisit wider matters which have been addressed by the original grant of planning permission.
However, we are sceptical about the merits of putting this case law on a statutory footing as suggested by Amendment 135HZG. The principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up their decision-making. Indeed, it could create new grounds for legal challenges to planning decisions, which we want to avoid.
Similarly, I am not convinced that we need a review on this matter.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I gratefully appreciate the answer the Minister has given, but I want some clarity. He made two comments there. The reason for this, and I accept it is a probing amendment, is to bring into the planning process absolute clarity that a decision has been made and cannot be revisited. That certainly seems to be the case with case law. But the reason we have case law is because people are making decisions in the planning system which then have to go to court. By making things much clearer, it will enhance the role of those who are saying, “Hold on, we have already decided that there is planning approval for x”. Just because you are now changing the colour of the door, that does not mean you can revisit the original planning permission again. I am slightly puzzled why he is saying that, by making that clarification, it may even result in more legal processes. I am not necessarily expecting an answer tonight, because I appreciate he has valiantly stepped in at the last minute, but if he could think a little more about that and maybe we can have a conversation afterwards.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I could write to the noble Lord on that specific point. But it seems to me that the principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up the decision-making. Similarly, we are not convinced that we need a review on this matter. We, of course, are always looking at opportunities to improve the planning system and if there is evidence that supplementary consents like reserved matter approvals were unnecessarily revisiting matters, we would want to take action, but we do not think a review would be proportionate.
Finally, Amendment 185SE seeks to ensure that changes required to extant planning permissions to comply with changes in legislation would benefit from automatic planning permission. I can say we share a common goal, which is to ensure that developments are not delayed by new legislative requirements. When the Government introduce changes to planning legislation, they are usually not applied retrospectively to avoid the uncertainty this would cause, but we recognise that changes to other regulatory regimes, such as building regulations, can impact on approved development and this may require subsequent amendments to the planning permission which can be frustrating for developers. However, we do not think this amendment provides a solution. It is too broad, and some regulatory changes can have a material impact on approved development which warrant further consideration from a planning perspective.
Instead, we are keen to ensure that, when new legislation is developed which could impact on development, the consequences for planning are recognised and minimised. There are already a number of mechanisms available within the planning system which allow changes to planning permissions in a proportionate way, such as light-touch applications for non-material amendments under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and we are keen to see these mechanisms being used to address the consequences of any wider regulatory changes on approved development. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. To be honest, the enforcement regime is not the right balance at the moment that the Minister suggested. I think there is a real concern about the confidence that those that receive planning permissions apply them properly, and that those who do not feel that they are under pressure from enforcement when those issues come up.
The other issue is that, clearly, even it is not a duty, the principle that the offender should pay for the cost for enforcement, is one that the Treasury and department should find a way forward on and maybe solve it on that basis. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) After section 323A insert—“323B Promotion and use of mediation etc.(1) The Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers may issue guidance in relation to the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique in relation to the following—(a) the preparation of local development plans and related evidence reports under Part 2,(b) a prospective applicant’s compliance with any requirements in respect of pre-application consultation imposed under or by virtue of sections 61W or 61Z,(c) assisting in the determination of an application for planning permission, including related planning obligations or their variation under sections 106 and 106A, and(d) any other matter related to planning including the acquisition or appropriation of land for planning purposes that they consider appropriate.(2) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision about—(a) the form of mediation or other ADR technique that is to be used in a particular circumstance, and(b) the procedure to be followed in any such mediation.(3) Local authorities must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1).(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must consult—(a) planning authorities, and(b) such other persons that they consider appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must make any guidance issued under subsection (1) publicly available.(6) The power under subsection (1) to issue guidance includes power to—(a) issue guidance that varies guidance issued under that subsection, and(b) revoke guidance issued under that subsection.(7) For the purposes of this section, “mediation” and “ADR technique” includes any means of exploring, resolving or reducing disagreement between persons involving an impartial person that the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.(8) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must issue guidance under subsection (1) within the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that guidance must be issued on the promotion and use of mediation and other forms of ADR in the planning process. It is intended to engender a culture of informal resolution of disputes, in order to reduce the risk of the delay and expense caused by litigation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I once again declare my interest as a practising barrister and mediator in a set of chambers which specialises in public and planning law.
The Government’s objective, and the overriding objective of the Bill as I understand it, is to speed up the planning process and build more homes. One way—I suggest the best way—of achieving this would be to reduce conflict and to avoid lengthy litigation about planning matters, with all the delay and expenditure which results. I venture to suggest that Amendment 133 in my name could do more than any other single measure in the Bill to achieve that objective. It is a big claim, but I make no apologies to the Committee for making it. I have been most enheartened by the positive reception that this suggestion has already had from the Government Front Bench.
This amendment can, I believe, achieve what numerous amendments to planning legislation have never focused on: namely, giving a clear legislative steer from government that all stakeholders must now seek to engage in a more constructive conversation rather than defaulting to confrontation and, ultimately, to litigation. The alternative to this amendment is that the status quo of delays, confrontation and forced outcomes will be perpetuated—an alternative which is certainly not in the public interest.
The present system, in which mediation is permitted but not encouraged, frequently allows polarised positions to be perpetuated, and, too often, their related toxic conversations simply lead to the greater likelihood of confrontation and litigation in the planning sphere, with all the attendant division, costs and delay.
As I say, mediation within the English planning system is presently known and has been successfully deployed. However, it continues to be a significantly underused and underappreciated resource. In contrast, in other spheres of litigation, mediation has now become central to the civil justice system, greatly encouraged by repeated appellate court judgments—and it is increasingly becoming mandatory. This is all the case despite the planning system recognising that the potential of mediation is long acknowledged.
In the recent case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council in 2023, in the decision of the Court of Appeal, comprising the Lady Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Deputy Master of the Rolls, it was decided that a court can order the parties to engage in non-court-based dispute resolution and can order a stay in proceedings to allow that to take place. Of course, that applies in ordinary litigation, but this amendment would mean that it would apply with full force within the planning sphere.
Planning law lags behind almost all other areas of the law. There have been earlier efforts to try to incorporate mediation in the planning sector. As I explained to the House when first raising the possibility of this amendment at Second Reading, there have been four major examples. The first was the 2006 Barker Review of Land Use Planning. The second was the Government’s 2009 response to the Killian Pretty report, which urged investigation of the use of ADR at all stages of the planning process. Thirdly, there was the 2010 report commissioned by the National Planning Forum and the Planning Inspectorate, called Mediation in Planning, and fourthly, the National Planning Forum’s 2011 Mediation in Planning: A Short Guide, which was endorsed by the then Minister for Planning, Sir Bob Neill.
Then, in 2012, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, introduced something called Section 106 brokers, an initiative introduced when he was Communities Secretary. This system was designed to facilitate the agreement of Section 106 agreements, whereby a mediator sat with an independent surveyor and would discuss with landowners, developers and the local authority what agreements could be reached on Section 106. This was to have—and had—the effect of accelerating development projects. The initiative was then taken into legislation through the short-lived Sections 106(BA) to 106(BC) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and it allowed for renegotiation of Section 106 obligations in respect of affordable housing. The sunset provision for those measures expired in April 2016. The real problem with that model was that the Treasury was paying for the mediator and the independent surveyor. We then had another legislative provision brought in under Sir Brandon Lewis, when he was Planning Minister, and that led to new Sections 106(ZA) and 106(ZB) to allow for a form of adjudication of disputes. However, those measures were never implemented.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak broadly in support of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment would embed the promotion and use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution in our planning system. I inform the Committee that I have been an elected local councillor sitting on a planning committee and worked for a number of years as a community mediator, helping to run a community mediation service specialising in neighbour disputes.
For too long, our approach to resolving planning disputes has been overly adversarial, leading to court battles, mounting costs, lengthy delays and frustrated developers, communities and local authorities. Too much of our planning process revolves around zero-sum games—talking to people, doing things to them and resorting to formal legal processes when things go wrong, as they inevitably do. The amendment is an invitation to do things better, for the benefit of all people and the interests of better governance and speeding up the planning process.
Mediation is no longer an untrusted novelty. It is widely used in all sectors of society. Its benefits are well established in many sectors and many areas of everyday life. It is used fairly infrequently, but it is used in the planning process. Properly structured and supported mediation interventions and processes can resolve specific contentious issues at an early stage, reducing hostility and helping to build trust, to foster positive relationships in a way that litigation is not capable of doing. When used, it produces high satisfaction, more creative solutions and results that last beyond the immediate dispute. As opposed to legal processes which are imposed from on high, mediation resolutions are designed and tailored by the parties themselves to fix exactly their individual needs. These outcomes can be transformative and, because the parties design them themselves, they tend to work more for their specific needs, meaning that they are more committed to the outcomes that they have helped to create.
Mediation will obviously not work in all cases, but it can work in some. What is certain is that, if mediation is not widely available, not promoted and not explored, it will not work in the planning processes. In some areas I do disagree with the noble Lord. My view is that mediation should be wholly a voluntary process for both parties. Every dispute that is kept out of lengthy appeals or court hearings is a saving to the public purse, a saving to local councils and a help with the Government’s stated aim of speeding up the planning processes. Studies have found that as many as 73% of mediated cases avoided further appeals, cut expenses and helped to reduce times.
It is not just about saving money. This is about making the system more accessible, making it work better for the people involved and making it more inclusive. Mediation enables genuine dialogue and empowers communities to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. It is especially effective in complex cases—major developments, local plans, Section 106 negotiation and compulsory purchase disputes—where misunderstandings and mistrust can easily escalate into enshrined conflict. Mediation offers confidentiality, tailored solutions and better governance. Some worry about the cost, but this could be overcome and lead to savings. I call for the Government to look at this and to take it seriously. However, for this system to work it would need some dedicated funding and support from government.
I conclude with a couple of questions. We know that we have some mediation processes within planning, but they are rarely used and not very well embedded. Have the Government done any assessment on the use of mediation to date? Has it helped to speed up processes? Has it resulted in better outcomes? Have those outcomes lasted longer than legal ones? If the Government are not going to support this amendment today, can they consider doing a larger-scale trial of the use of mediation within the planning process? Then the outcomes can be properly monitored and the Government can make a fair assessment of the use of mediation more wholly within the planning process.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on Amendment 133, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. We welcome the opportunity the amendment provides to hear more from the Government on how they intend to reduce the risk of lengthy and expensive litigation within the planning process. As many in the Committee will know, such disputes can cause considerable delays, uncertainty for local communities, and significant costs for both the applicants and local authorities. It is therefore important to understand what practical steps the Government are considering to streamline proceedings while ensuring that proper scrutiny and accountability remain in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his amendment on statutory guidance on mediation in planning. This would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation in a range of different planning activities, including plan-making, decision-taking and the use of compulsory purchase. The thrust of the amendment is to ensure that issues are dealt with upfront, as opposed to relying on issues to be dealt with through the courts.
As the noble Lord set out in his speech at Second Reading of the Bill, this is not a new issue. Previous Governments have explored this approach multiple times, but it has borne little fruit. Although we completely agree with the underlying objective of the amendment, we regretfully cannot accept it.
We feel that a statutory duty to have regard to such guidance would not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. In particular, when determining planning applications, planning law requires the decision-maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development plan and weigh this with other material planning considerations.
Given this legal framework, it would not always be possible to reach consensus on all matters—this is not the exercise when determining whether development should be granted permission. Where a planning application is refused by a local planning authority, there is a well-established procedure whereby the applicant can appeal the decision. In an appeal, an independent inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will consider planning matters afresh. The procedures used give relevant parties the opportunity to state their case further. As these processes are carried out in public, it ensures that the process is transparent and fair. This process provides a considerable benefit compared with mediation, in that mediation is carried out behind closed doors.
It is common practice, and encouraged through the NPPF, that when determining applications local planning authorities work positively and proactively with applicants. It is often the case that large-scale and complex development applicants and local planning authorities enter into planning performance agreements, which will help manage the process and provide a forum for dispute resolution.
There are some areas where we actively encourage mediation already. In relation to compulsory purchase, the Government have already published guidance on the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, including mediation, to help parties resolve concerns on the principle of compulsorily purchasing land by CPO. The Government are also committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions, including Section 106 planning obligations, to ensure new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure, and we are considering a range of options to deliver on that commitment.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support of the amendment. I rather agree with the questions that he asked. I look forward to seeing a copy of the letter which I am sure the Minister will write in response to the questions posed by the noble Earl. I am also grateful for the support from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Turning then to the response from the Minister, I must confess that I am rather disappointed with the tone of the reply. Clearly, it is out of kilter with the approach taken by the senior courts of this country in encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution. I have to say I find the reasoning as to why this particular route should not be explored unpersuasive; saying that it has not worked in earlier iterations is not a reason not to try a better formulation. That does not stack up. The second reason given was that planning processes occur in public and mediation occurs in private. That is true in all civil litigation, where mediation is positively encouraged by the courts. The point is that, if we enable the parties to negotiate in advance, we can avoid litigation, save public money and avoid delay.
I hope the Government will revisit their resistance, because I would consider returning to this issue on Report. I look forward to my meeting with the Minister’s colleague, which may or may not result in a different position. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Thornhill
“Removal of Permitted Development Rights for Conversion to Dwellinghouses(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (2015/596) is amended as follows—(a) in Schedule 2, Part 3 (changes of use), the following Classes are repealed—(i) Class G (commercial, business and service or betting office or pay day loan shop to mixed use);(ii) Class L (small HMOs to dwellinghouses and vice versa)(iii) Class M (certain uses to dwellinghouses)(iv) Class MA (commercial, business and service uses to dwellinghouses);(v) Class N (specified sui generis uses to dwellinghouses);(vi) Class Q (buildings on agricultural units and former agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses);(b) Schedule 2, Part 20 (construction of new dwellinghouses) is repealed.(2) Any development under the revoked Classes in Part 3 and Part 20 of Schedule 2 that has—(a) commenced before the date on which this Act comes into force, and(b) received valid prior approval or notification from the local planning authority before that date,shall be allowed to proceed under the conditions applicable prior to the repeal.(3) No new applications for prior approval under the revoked Classes may be submitted after the date on which this Act comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a range of permitted development rights that previously allowed certain non-residential buildings to be converted into homes without full planning permission. It repeals specific change-of-use and new dwellinghouse construction rights in the General Permitted Development Order 2015. Developments already approved or commenced before the repeal may continue under existing rules, but no new applications can be made once the changes take effect.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 134 with a butchered, watered down and much shorter version of my speech than the one I was going to give, so forgive me if it is not quite up to my usual standards.
This amendment seeks to reverse the decision of previous Governments to give permitted development rights to allow the conversion of non-residential properties into dwelling houses—in other words, to get back to where we were, when they would have had to apply for planning permission. The incremental changes were brought about over 10 years ago. Now, there is loads of evidence, including the Government’s own, that this is failing, and on three main grounds. Given that, in future, with more working from home, there are likely to be—and there already are—a lot more empty office blocks, we feel that this needs to be looked at fully and seriously before our town centres and business centres are hollowed out.
First, on quality, there is no doubt that many of these conversions are substandard. Indeed, in my own borough, Watford, there is a case study of a small factory that had been made into several flats with no windows. This happened with PDRs. The case was brought to government—with a body of other things, obviously—and made the previous Government include that such dwellings should have windows.
Secondly, and close to our hearts—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Best, here—we have lost loads of affordable housing. Had planning permission been collected, we would certainly have had more. Indeed, the LGA reckons that we have had a loss of 28,000 affordable homes. Think how many could have been housed off the temporary accommodation list had we had those homes.
Thirdly, it rides roughshod through local plans and policies, and the design, sustainability and accessibility that have been worked up with local councils and communities to build the places that they want to see.
Amendment 134 is not anti-housing; it is pro quality housing. The amendment was drawn up by the LGA, and many councils and development partners have contributed. Some 39 organisations and many individuals have signed an open letter to the Government—I heard only today that Mayor Burnham has added his name to the letter—to ask them to seriously consider rescinding PDRs. This shows the strength of opposition. In opposition, several government Members, including the Minister, had strong feelings and concerns about PDRs. My question is very simple: what has happened? I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to find that I take exactly the opposite point of view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I see permitted development rights—as in my Private Member’s Bill, and as in my amendments to this Bill—as having a large potential to contribute substantially to housing expansion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I shall curtail my remarks in the hope that what the Minister says will be so enlightening that I shall not need to ask her further questions.
My amendments propose a targeted set of expansions to permitted development rights to boost uptake and delivery by methods such as: removing unjustifiably onerous restrictions, including those concerning the ability to convert commercial buildings in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or the inability to extend upwards on pre-1948 buildings of no defined heritage value, or buildings postdating an arbitrary date; clarifying the wording of prior approval conditions to remove vagueness, which leads to a lack of consistency in decision-making between LPAs and more uncertainty in their application to, for example, natural light, flood risk or transport impacts; and removing the subjectivity currently allowed for within external appearance conditions for upward extensions, which are regularly used to refuse or frustrate upward extension in classes A and AA to AD and which act as a strong disincentive for the use of these permitted development rights by SME developers and housebuilders.
Instead, the local design code-based conditions in my amendments would provide certainty and consistency to decision-making, permitting the combined use and application of class MA and classes A and AA to AD, to maximise the development potential for existing buildings to deliver new homes.
Design codes are hugely important in this. Mandatory local design codes, already supported by the NPPF, are essential to make permitted development rights work at scale. They would replace subjective judgments on external appearance with rule-based certainty, define acceptable height, density, daylight and amenity standards to reduce the risk for developers, and be capable of delivery via a public/private model with some costs recovered through planning fee reforms, which could target PDR applications.
Reforms would bring consistency, reduce risk and make PDR a viable route to delivery. Local design codes would improve outcomes and boost developer confidence and certainty in the uptake and use of PDR. PDR allows for greater numbers of conversions and extensions of existing buildings to provide new housing and sustainable urban environments. This would help to reduce the demand and strain of granting housing developments in less sustainable greenfield locations.
Together, the amendments that I suggest would unlock new housing capacity in the most sustainable and accessible locations and benefit smaller building firms, while still maintaining quality and control over the urban environment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. With the Government’s ambition to increase the supply of social and affordable housing and the reforms to improve the capacity of the planning system, now seems the right time to reform PDR. The Government have rightly made the quality and safety of housing a priority, but conversions to PDR are not subject to the same standards compared to developments going through the full planning system.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, in its report on the impact of extending permitted development rights on public authorities and communities, found that the quality of office-to-residential conversions was significantly worse than those which had been brought through the planning process. Other than the nationally described space standards and requirements around natural light, there are no minimum standards for these converted homes relating to safety, facilities, communal space, or connection to amenities.
It is essential that the housing that is developed is the right housing to meet local needs and make a positive impact on the lives of residents. It is necessary to make it a viable solution for addressing the housing crisis. At a minimum, conversions should meet the healthy homes principle brought forward by the Town and Country Planning Association’s Healthy Homes campaign. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these points.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Committee. Permitted development rights are a significant area of policy as they play a crucial role in both the supply and the quality of new homes. It is important not only for the delivery of more housing but also for ensuring that those homes meet the needs of the communities in which they are built. The rules which govern permitted development therefore deserve careful consideration and the contributions made in today’s debate have highlighted the balance that must be struck between delivering more homes and protections for local communities and ensuring quality homes.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a point of particular frustration for many homeowners in his Amendment 185A, and this reads across to other areas of government policy. I know owners of heritage properties and homes in conservation areas face particular challenges with increasing the energy efficiency of their home, and my noble friend is right to put this challenge to Ministers. I also note that the Government have announced that as of 2030 all private landlords will be required to meet a higher standard in their properties, with energy performance certificates of C or equivalent, up from the current level of E. Given the fact that many heritage and listed properties, including those in conservation areas, are often not permitted to instal double glazing—I refer to my comments in the previous group—can the Minister confirm that the new EPC requirement will not apply to listed and heritage properties? We look forward to hearing the Government’s view on these amendments and to understanding how they propose to address the concerns that have been raised.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Before I address the amendments in this group, I want to correct an error that I made earlier when I was responding to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has kindly pointed out my error. When I said the £39 billion allocated for social and affordable housing was for this Parliament, it is in fact a 10-year pledge of funding. I want to make sure that is corrected in Hansard.
All the amendments in this group tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to amend permitted development rights. Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order, generally following public consultation. This ensures that the views of the public are taken into account, including those that would benefit from or otherwise be impacted by the rights created or removed. We will continue to keep permitted development rights under review and I am grateful for the views that have been put forward by noble Lords in this regard.
Amendment 134 seeks to revoke the nationally set permitted development rights that deliver new homes through a change of use or by extending upwards and that allow dwelling houses to change use to a small house in multiple occupation and vice versa. The sustainable solution to the housing crisis is to accelerate the delivery of affordable, safe and decent purpose-built housing. I understand the intent of these amendments, with which I have a deal of sympathy. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill will know, we are in a housing crisis and these permitted development rights have provided over 113,000 new homes in the last nine years. Permitted development rights are subject to prior approval by the local planning authority to allow for local consideration of specific planning matters. We acknowledge the concerns that exist about the quality of some of the residential units created through permitted development rights, particularly those created from commercial-to-residential conversions. We have all seen booklets with pictures of horrendous examples of those conversions and I would not want to advocate that type of practice.
All new homes delivered under permitted development rights are now required to meet nationally described space standards and provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. All new homes, whether delivered through permitted development rights or following a planning application, are required to meet building regulations.
We all know that small houses in multiple occupation can play an important part in providing low-cost accommodation. The permitted development right for a change of use from a dwelling house to a small house in multiple occupation helps to provide flexibility. The permitted development aspect of that can be removed by making an Article 4 direction where the local planning authority considers it necessary and in line with national planning policy. The amendment would make it harder to create new homes from existing buildings at a time of acute housing need. I have not seen the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to and I look forward to receiving that. But, for all the reasons that I have explained, I hope she will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful for the answers that the Minister has given, and I will think hard on what she said. I certainly understand what she said about the way of dealing with these things not being through the Bill. However, I urge the Government to remember that lots of small improvements—as the Minister has pointed out in terms of the last 10 years of permitted development rights—make a difference. They nourish the small end of the builders’ market and give some balance to the domination of housebuilding by the big housebuilders. It is really important that that end of the market works well.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will make a quick comment. Article 4 directions are actually a very challenging process; the Secretary of State really gives you a hard time about it and you usually have to justify covering a larger area. The problem with PDRs is they are all over the place and that makes an Article 4 direction a little bit more difficult.
I would like to challenge a fundamental misconception. The Minister talked about the 113,000 homes that have already been created. The misconception is that they would not have happened anyway. I am sure some of them would not, but the majority, if they had gone through the planning process, would have had things suggested, altered and improved to pull up the standard. But, of course, it would not have happened quite as quickly.
I am going to end on a slightly tangential anecdote that shows that we really need to look at this. The people in the house next door to me have informed me that they will be erecting a 12 metre by 20 metre single-storey building in their garden directly adjacent to mine. They do not need planning permission. It is half the size of the garden and they are allowed to do that. If I want to erect a fence to cover the hideous wall of brick that I am going to be looking on instead of a beautiful garden with mature trees, I will have to apply for planning permission. Therefore, I think it is time to review the whole set-up, but particularly office to residential. I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning permission for self-build and custom housebuilding(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 (2016/950) as follows.(2) After Regulation 3 (definition of a serviced plot of land), insert—3A. “(1) For the purposes of section 2A(2) and (5) of the Act (Duty to grant planning permission etc), only the following development permissions may be considered to meet the demand for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding in the planning authority’s area arising in each base period—(a) planning permission (as defined by section 58(1)(b) (granting of planning permission: general) and section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”)) which is—(i) subject to a planning conditions restricting either the whole of or a specified number of units within the proposed development to self-build and custom housebuilding;(ii) subject to an obligation under section 106 of the 1990 Act (planning obligations), restricting either the whole of or a specified number of units within the proposed development to self-build and custom housebuilding;(b) permission in principle (as defined by section 58A of 1990 Act (permission in principle: general), where the description of the proposed development is for self-build and custom housebuilding.(2) For the purposes of this Regulation, self-build and custom housebuilding has the same meaning as in section 1(A1) and (A2) of the Act (Registers of persons seeking to acquire land to build a home).”.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, 10 groups done; 10 to go. I turn to Amendment 135. I am doing this in the name of a friend of mine, Richard Bacon, who used to be the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk. He retired at the last election and is watching proceedings now—I am delighted he is—and he has spent a lot of time on self-build, which is what this amendment is about.
To pay credit to my friend Richard, he had managed to get issues about self-build into primary legislation. It had been commenced, but there are still elements that seem to be holding back this potential of self-build. Recognising, as the Minister said earlier, the words of her latest Secretary of State, to “Build, baby, build”, we should unleash the self-builders, where it is appropriate, right across the country. As my friend has pointed out, this is tenure neutral. There are great examples. Anyone can read his report that was commissioned by the previous Administration. He has written extensively on this, so I do not need to repeat everything he has put in the public domain.
To give a sense, there are good examples of this in the Netherlands, where groups of people have come together. They have actually built high-density and multiple-storey by some housing being particularly desirable—the penthouse may have got more of a price. You see multi-generational homes being built. To some extent—recognising what has been already pointed out in several parts of the debate, not only today, but in earlier consideration of the Bill—self-build is certainly a sector which needs to have the opportunity to at least be given a go. I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has just said about permitted development rights, with her neighbour building something which sounds rather extraordinary. That said, as someone with a large garden, perhaps that persuaded them that this was a way to reduce the amount of gardening; but that is a different story.
The Bacon review recommended that a range of regulatory reforms be brought forward to support the scaling up of self-build and to help boost much-needed housebuilding across England. I have already referred to the fact that the amendment to the 2015 Act through LURA, which came into force last year, made it clear that only planning permissions that are specifically for self-build can count towards meeting an authority’s statutory duty.
Despite that amendment, there remains considerable uncertainty over what types of permissions should be counted towards the duty imposed on local authorities to permit enough plots of land to meet the demand on their self-build registers. The LURA therefore provided for this new power to allow the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the types of development permissions that can be counted by a relevant authority to comply with its duty to meet demand as defined under Section 2A(2) of the 2015 Act. This has not been taken forward yet by the Government.
Amendment 135 proposes to insert a new provision into the Bill to require the Government to amend the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 to clarify the types of development permissions that must be counted towards the duty of local authorities to meet their local demand for service plots of land for people to build their own homes. The amendment would have the effect of implementing the provision in Section 123(1)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that enables the Government to specify regulations on the types of development permissions that can be counted by local authorities to comply with their duty to meet demand under Section 2A(2) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.
The Government’s plan for change set an ambitious target to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament. They say they are committed to reforming the planning system, that they are pro-growth and that they back SME builders to get Britain building. In May of this year, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that smaller housebuilders
“must be the bedrock of our Plan for Change”
and to get
“working people on the housing ladder”.
She also said that she was committed to making the planning system
“simpler, fairer and more cost effective, so smaller housebuilders can play a crucial role”
in building the homes we need, improving choice and boosting tenure mix on larger sites to improve buildout. To deliver against these objectives, the Government must surely look to operate all possible levers at their disposal, yet so far they have chosen not to bring forward much-needed further regulation to support more people to build their own homes.
The Competition and Markets Authority’s 2024 housebuilding market study report concluded that self-build and custom housebuilding is one of the main models in the UK housing market, with some 15,900 homes completed in 2021-22—admittedly, that was just as we were coming out of the variety of lockdowns. It concluded that, by enabling more alternative, private and non-speculative models, such as self-build and custom housebuilding development, dependence on the speculative housebuilding model can be reduced and market diversity improved, which in turn helps to speed up housing delivery. This could allow for more homes to be absorbed within local markets without housebuilders needing to reduce house prices, thereby speeding up housing delivery.
The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 places a statutory duty on local authorities in England to hold a register of people who want to acquire land to self or custom build in their area, and to grant planning permission for enough plots of land to satisfy that demand. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 set out that authorities must meet this demand—that is, grant sufficient planning permission within three years. Despite these provisions, the Government’s own data shows that the gap between the supply of SBCH plots and consumer demand continues to fall.
Self-build and custom housebuilding data released by the Minister’s department in February showed that the number of individuals on local registers had risen by 4% to over 64,000 and that group registrations are near to 1,000. Despite this increase, planning permissions have continued to fall, reaching just over 5,000 a couple of years ago—the lowest level since legislation was first introduced in 2016.
A key cause of the decline in supply plots is that many local authorities—including, I am led to believe, Winchester, Uttlesford, Dacorum, Rutland and South Kesteven—refuse planning applications on grounds that they are meeting local demand. Yet, when they are tested, it is often clear that they are counting planning permissions towards their annual targets, when they are plainly not for self-build or custom housing, to avoid releasing more land to meet growing demand. Such practices are frustrating delivery and costing taxpayers and developers many thousands of pounds in fighting planning appeals to prove councils wrong. It is not unusual for planning barristers, consultants and local authority officers to debate at length at appeal whether a council has correctly counted the number of such permissions it has given to meet local demand and for inspectors then to have to interpret the evidence submitted and decide what weight they should give to the arguments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 135 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and declare an interest in that the sponsor of her amendment, Richard Bacon, was the Member of Parliament for South Norfolk, where I represented the council for many years; it is worth putting it on record that he devoted the greater part of his parliamentary career to pursuing the importance of self-building in our nation. Self-building is not just the right thing to do because it is going to deliver more homes; it enables striving families to build a house of their dreams. Of course, they do not actually build it themselves. Self-building is not about getting all the tools; it is about procuring and possibly designing a home for you to live in for the long term—the basis of community and empowerment in that sense.
I welcome the amendment, not least because we have sleepwalked into a situation where a small number of national housebuilders have created for themselves a substantial monopoly, not just in the building of homes but in their design. Local distinctiveness and vernacular have been lost. A bungalow that has gone a bomb in Barnsley is built in Bunwell, 200 miles away, yet it is the same design language. We need distinctiveness. The logical conclusion, the spirit of what this amendment seeks to achieve, is that not only do we give those wanting to build their own home or procure their own residence the chance but local authorities can be very distinctive about making sure that we are capturing the correct need for those people who have the wherewithal to do it—not just the casual want, as was the original case and has now been tightened up.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 135H in this group. This is another of my attempts to help the Government make the way that housing is delivered slightly more efficient. I live in Eastbourne, and Eastbourne Borough Council has a long-standing partnership with a modular house builder called Boutique Modern, which has produced some very effective houses in the town, looking quite different from one another because it is easier to customise the outside of those modular homes; but the structure, what is happening inside, is the same. It is produced in a factory. It is daft, when you are producing identical goods, to have to go through type approval for them as if they were being built on the ground.
You have a design, which has passed all the tests and been approved by the Buildoffsite Property Assurance Scheme, I suggest—though it could equally be some other body—then you avoid all the processes and costs associated with whether it is an acceptable design for a place for someone to live in and can concentrate on how the site is laid out and what the building looks like. That makes a really effective way for people to build and procure their own houses, to go with my noble friend’s excellent amendment.
I urge this on the Government as a way in which they can make another small improvement that will, over time, decrease the cost and increase the rate of housebuilding.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word or two about self-build and custom housebuilding, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey—although I also want to ask a question about the precise terms in which her amendment is phrased.
I declare an interest, in that my nephew is seeking to build his own family home and has been on the register in Tandridge for a number of years now. He has received nothing from Tandridge by way of an offer of any plot anywhere, although he is entirely eligible, including being a locally connected person and so on.
I remember that we discussed this during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—I remember talking to Richard Bacon about the provisions. My noble friend is absolutely right: we put a regulation-making power in with the objective of trying to ensure that the development permissions that were granted for self-build and custom housebuilding were genuinely for that and not for something else. The question to Ministers is whether, at this stage, they will use this power and how they will they use it.
The phraseology in my noble friend’s amendment, in so far as it says that only the specific development permissions that are referred to are to be treated as meeting a demand, may have the benefit of excluding some things that should not be treated as such but may have the disbenefit of excluding some things that should be treated as such, including people who bring forward their own plots for this purpose that do not form part of a wider development. It is rather important that we bring in what should be part of development permissions that meet demand for self-build and custom housebuilding and exclude those that do not and get the structure of it right.
Where we need to think more, if I recall correctly, is about what we do in relation to local planning authorities that have persistent unmet demand on that basis for self-build and custom housebuilding. There is an enormous potential benefit here. Look at other similar countries that have very large numbers of self-build and custom housebuilding. If the Government are looking for an opportunity to add to the extent of building, and indeed to support small housebuilders, this is absolutely the right territory to be working on.
To return to a familiar subject for me, the use of national development management policies in relation to decisions on planning applications for people who wish to build for themselves may well be one of the routes that the Government might like to consider for taking this issue forward.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 135, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I piloted the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill through your Lordships’ House in 2015, so I have an ongoing vested interest in the progress that this has made. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not just for a full account of where this has come from and where it might be going to but for the technical detail that she explained very fully, which saves me struggling to do the same.
I can add two things. One is this: why should the Government be interested in this? The self-build and custom housebuilding sector has so much merit and is so undeveloped. It does the following things. It adds additional homes toward the 1.5 million target. It introduces diversity and competition to the speculative housing model that has let us down on so many occasions. It brings back the small and medium housebuilder. It makes use of small sites that are of no interest to the large-scale developers. It supports the fledgling modern methods of construction—or MMC—sector. It enables people to create the homes they really want, not what is served up to them by the volume housebuilders. It does so many good things all at once and it is certainly worthy of support, especially as it does not cost the Government anything to provide that support, which is a rarity.
The Government initiated an equity loan scheme, through Homes England, which enabled people to borrow on preferential terms. That finished in April of 2025, leaving the sector without any real extra support or governmental backing. This amendment would be one helpful step forward for a sector that is providing between 5% and 10% of all the homes we are creating, so it is not insignificant in its scale.
If this particular amendment is not the way by which the Government could be more helpful in the future, is there any intention in government to do anything at this stage that would support the self-build and custom housebuilding sector? It is deserving of a bit more backing. I support the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 135 and 135H. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I think I am in the middle of building one of these self-build houses—I know I am, but I do not think of myself as a self-builder because I am not out there with bricks and mortar. More seriously, the complexity involved and time it takes for an individual who wants to convert their own little two-bedroom cottage to get through the planning system is unbelievable—it probably took me two and a half years. That is not acceptable and it does put people off, I am sure.
On Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, modern housing delivery, particularly self-build and custom housebuilding, is important because it can add to supply. It can provide homes that better meet local or individual needs, and it can encourage innovation. Too often, as I have said, individuals face barriers in accessing land or securing timely permission. Will the Minister set out how the Government intend to make the existing right to self-build more effective and ensure that local authorities bring forward and encourage more sites to be built out in this way?
Amendment 135H, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, addresses modular and off-site construction, where homes are manufactured to a set design and then assembled on site. When I was a Minister, I spoke many times on this, and I know that these methods can improve speed, quality and sustainability, yet planning delays can hold them back. Will the Minister please set out how the Government will support modern methods of construction in the planning system and whether they will streamline processes to encourage their wider use? Critical to making modular and off-site construction companies successful, and helping them survive, is that they need a pipeline of contractors putting in contracts. How do the Government propose to support the sector on this issue? It is a critical sector for building out these 1.5 million houses as quickly as possible and for them to be sustainable into the future. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for these amendments. By the way, I hope it is not the nephew of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is building the structure next door to the garden of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 135 seeks to restrict the types of development permission that may be counted by relevant authorities in meeting their duty to grant development permission for self-build and custom housebuilding under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 to those set out in the new clause. The Government recognise that self and custom-build housing can play an important role as part of measures to diversify the market and support SMEs to ensure we can deliver the homes we need and support home ownership.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. I welcome her to 10 September.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken—my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Lansley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Best. In response to my noble friend Lord Lansley, I am very conscious that perhaps there is a proper definition that can deal with this, so I will reflect on that and see what I can work through. He is absolutely right in saying that national development management policies are the way forward.
I inferred from what the Minister said that it is early days, and we will see where it goes. There is a group of willing people who want to get on. This is designed to make it as straightforward as possible for people to have homes. I know she supports that outcome, and I hope I can potentially work a little more with her and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in order to make that a reality. On that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Planning decisions: consideration of an EDPIn section 70(2)(aa) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations) at end insert—“(ab) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, so far as material to the application,””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when making a planning decision, the local planning authority must take into account any EDP applying to the land question.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 135A may perhaps look a little innocuous, but it is actually critical in considering how Part 3 of the Bill will work. By the way, I did not determine where this appeared in the Bill; that was done by the clerks.
It has arisen due to evidence given by the chief executive of Natural England, who was asked by the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons to address Part 3 of the Bill. I appreciate this is before the Government backtracked and made a number of changes to try and address the significant number of concerns, which have not been fully alleviated, in regard to the potential for environmental damage.
I am very pleased to set out this suggested amendment to the planning Bill, which would, in effect, put into place what was said by the chief executive of Natural England—the body being allocated all this power not only to create but to deliver the increase in biodiversity in compensation for the development the Government want to see.
Marian Spain, when asked about these powers being given to Natural England—it will be tasked with writing, delivering, monitoring and reporting on EDPs—responded by saying that developers will be able to choose not to pay the levy if they do not have the confidence in the relevant EDP, and also that planning authorities can refuse to grant planning permission to developers if they are not convinced that the EDP would work. That is not what is in the Bill today, but the chief executive—the accounting officer—of Natural England has said to Parliament that this is what the Bill is doing. This amendment, in effect, puts that into place.
She specifically said that, in terms of not choosing to pay the levy, there is a risk that developers could not have confidence in the EDPs. This is worrying. It means that, if developers promote a new scheme through the planning system, they will not know whether or where an EDP will land or what environmental features it will cover. They do not actually know if levies will be mandatory or voluntary or how much the levies will be. They will not know whether the local authority considers an existing EDP to be ineffective. Developers would need to navigate the added very real risk that planning permission is refused because a planning authority does not trust that an EDP is being or will be delivered properly.
As a consequence of what the chief executive has said, it seems that the planning authority would need to police the progress and effectiveness of EDPs in their local authority areas. That was not in the Government’s impact assessment and may not be the intention of the Government at all. I say to the Minister that the very person who will deliver exactly what is left out in Part 3 of this Bill is saying that is the case. Frankly, if it is the case, and that is what the chief executive has told Parliament, then this will be exceptionally worse than the status quo for developers.
Developers can already access strategic solutions for nature that are competitively brought forward by a range of actors, including landowners, charities, Natural England itself and private companies. These alternative solutions will be crowded out by EDPs, and we will get to that more substantial debate next week in Part 3. At the same time, there is a risk that planning permissions will be held up because local authorities will not trust that an underfunded, unscientific, non-locally led EDP will actually be delivered.
I have greater concerns about the whole concept of Part 3. However, what I think is good is that, by my amendment, we can put back in exactly what the chief executive of Natural England says this legislation is supposed to do. That is why I am moving this amendment.
Speaking to my noble friend’s amendment on planning information, it is a very straightforward amendment, and I support my noble friend. It is basically saying, “We are looking at biodiversity, we need to know what it is, why don’t we get it all ready and we can share it with the developers, so we can know what the basic part is”. I am sure my noble friend will explain it far more eloquently than I have tried to do in those 15 seconds. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 135F is basically saying, “Look, we are generating a lot of quality biodiversity information within the planning system, but we are not capturing it”.
As a previous Government—this Government are too, I believe—we were committed to restoring biodiversity in this country from a very unfortunate, low level. To do that well, we need really good data. There are a number of potential sources of that data, but the great majority of the quality biodiversity data—that which can absolutely be believed because it has been collected by people who are qualified and has been properly checked and done carefully—is generated by the planning system.
But the majority of the data collected by the planning system never finds itself going anywhere else. We have a system in the country of local environment record centres, where this data should be deposited; it is not. This is what I want the Government to do. I know there are those within the Government who are working in this direction, but they are in Defra not in MHCLG, so what I would like MHCLG to do is to say, “Yes, it is important that we collect this data; we will mandate that”. When it is created as part of the planning system, it should find its way into the national data record. This is not something that would impose huge costs, because the data will almost always be in an easily accessible format. If you are applying for planning permission, and you have done a biological survey, you have to say where you found what. That is basically all that is needed for the environmental record centres. What we need to do, though, is get the data flowing.
The other side of this is—within the limitations of the Bill—my second Amendment 253A is saying that we ought to be using this data much better than we do. We create things and make decisions without accessing the best possible data that we already hold, and we ought not to do that. We ought to be making the best possible informed decisions when it comes to biodiversity; otherwise, we will do stupid things that damage the environment even further. The best possible data—the best possible decisions. That requires that, when we are taking a decision which affects the environment, we go and get the best available data. Again, the planning system is central to that. There ought not to be an application within the planning system which does not use the best data. My amendment asks that we put that right.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am gravely concerned. Normally, of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Coffey, and perhaps I have misread her amendment, in which case I apologise, and she will correct me in the winding. In the evidence that the chief executive of Natural England gave to your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee 18 months ago, she said that it had no regard whatever for economic growth in determining its position on development proposals; it was purely, solely and entirely for environmental purposes. Of course, if growth is the principal and number one objective of this Government, these things need to be balanced. So the amendment puts a touching faith in the professionalism of Natural England, which, as I think we will discover next week, may be misplaced.
Natural England, in its provision of EDPs, as I read in the Bill, will be given monopoly powers to be a monopoly regulator, a monopoly provider and a monopoly price-maker of environmental schemes in this country. These EDPs, as I see it, could conceptually be 100 different EDPs on a national basis for 100 different species, each of which may be in a less favourable condition, or so forth.
If the experience of nutrient neutrality is anything to go by, it will take Natural England years to come up with mitigating programmes. That is what it has done, and in some parts of the country we are still waiting. So I have no faith that Natural England, vested as it will be in Part 3 of the Bill, will be prompt and complete in its provision of EDPs.
As I read this amendment, I see that it will be an excuse for local authorities not to grant an otherwise appropriate permission, which would in normal cases sail through because every other obligation and stipulation has been met. So I think we can contemplate that this could not only gum up and slow down the development, but there is a second problem. The risk is that the developer may have made his own inquiries and found his own local solution to a particular local requirement for an especially local problem, whether for species, environmental ecology, or whatever. I can see that the consequence of this amendment would be that he might have to pay three times: once for the delay, once for his own mitigation, which in so far as he or any reasonable person is concerned meets all the regulations, and another time to wait for the EDP, which may or may not be coming from Natural England in a prompt situation.
I am really concerned about this amendment. I do not believe that Natural England is the appropriate body to do this. If the Government take a different view, that is their prerogative. But we should not vest in Natural England monopoly powers that cut out private provision, private delivery, and especially local delivery, and sacrifice them on the altar of some national scheme at hugely inflated values.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for ensuring that one person is watching tonight—it is much appreciated—and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising interesting debates regarding Amendments 135A, 135F and 253A in the context of biodiversity protections through environmental delivery plans, or EDPs, and the capture and use of that data.
EDPs must do more than simply mitigate harm. They must require the active protection and enhancement of biodiversity, with clear enforceable timetables and measurable outcomes. Our concern is that EDPs risk becoming instruments of offsetting impact rather than delivering real local environmental recovery. We need a strong legal framework that prevents development-related damage to irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodlands and chalk streams, and makes sure these habitats receive the highest protection in planning decisions.
We welcome these amendments and look forward to some level of timetabling and monitoring in EDPs and the introduction of an overall improvement test seeking to ensure that conservation gains significantly outweigh harm. However, for us, questions remain about whether the provisions are sufficient in practice to guarantee meaningful biodiversity outcomes. The reliance on compensation rather than upfront prevention remains a concern, as does the limited timeframe for public scrutiny of EDPs. We all in this Committee note that Part 3 includes new measures on EDPs, including, as discussed, powers for Natural England to oversee and design conservation strategies, but it is still unclear how these changes will translate into on the ground improvements or prevent the loss of vulnerable habitats.
The hour is late, but it would be useful if the Minister could tell us to what extent these recent changes to Part 3 address the deep concerns about EDPs being used as a compromise rather than a solution. Will we see stronger enforcement, longer public consultations and better integration of biodiversity data into our planning decisions?
EDPs that guarantee biodiversity need to ensure that our natural heritage is a foundation, not a casualty, of sustainable development. I welcome this debate, therefore, and look forward to clarification—if not tonight then certainly when we debate Part 3 next week—to ensure that the Bill delivers the nature protections that we all believe this country urgently needs.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that we are getting ahead of ourselves. We are yet to reach Part 3, but these seem to be mostly considerations relating to the content of Part 3 and how the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy are intended to work.
I understood my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment to be grouped where it is and say what it does because nowhere in Part 3 is there something that otherwise tells us how the making of an environmental delivery plan affects a local planning authority in making its decisions. It seemed to me that she had tabled a rather useful amendment that did precisely that.
I do not think it is relevant whether a developer has to pay the levy or not. It can request to pay the levy, or, as we can see in Clause 66 and Schedule 4, Natural England can make it mandatory that it pays the levy. Either way, it does not really matter. The point is that, if the environmental delivery plan is made, a local authority should clearly take it into account in determining any planning permission, in the same way as it would be required to have regard to all the legislation relating to protected sites and protected species. Schedule 4 simply tells us that when the local authority makes planning decisions it may disregard them because there is an environmental delivery plan in place. What my noble friend Lady Coffey is saying would be at least a useful addition, in a technical sense, to the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his thoughtful ongoing contribution to our debate on this Bill. His amendment raises some significant questions about how biodiversity information is gathered, shared and used within the planning system.
This sparked a few questions that we wish to ask the Minister. First, can she clarify how the Government see the balance between requiring robust biodiversity data and avoiding unnecessary burdens on applicants—particularly smaller developers or individuals making household applications? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the readiness and capacity of local environmental record centres or other organisations to provide such information, should regulations of this kind be introduced? Thirdly, has consideration been given that this be addressed as part of the spatial development strategy or local plan? Lastly, how do the Government propose to ensure consistency and standardisation in biodiversity data collected so that it meaningfully informs local and national policy in the future?
Amendment 135, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that environmental delivery plans relevant to the land in question are considered when making planning decisions. This seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic measure that joins up the EDP process with planning decision-making. However, this amendment also raises the important point that I raised at Second Reading: the chicken and egg question. How can you develop an EDP without knowing what the spatial development strategy is that it is seeking to mitigate? Conversely, do you need an EDP to make a spatial development strategy deliverable? It would seem sensible that they are done in parallel. If so, why would an EDP not be part of the spatial development strategy? Can the Minister please provide a clearer answer than at Second Reading?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for their amendments in this group. There will be a very full debate on the wider issues around EDPs, the role of Natural England and so on next week. I will answer the specific points today and, in view of the hour, we will leave the wider discussions until next week.
Amendment 135A seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan is taken into account by a planning decision-maker when making a planning decision under the Town and Country Planning Act. Although it is crucial that EDPs are fully integrated into the wider planning system, I assure the noble Baroness that how EDPs work in practice means that the amendment is not necessary. Where a developer makes a payment into an EDP, the making of that payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation. This means that the planning decision-maker will not need to consider the specific environmental obligation covered by the EDP when deciding on an application.
To respond to the points about the differences that came forward after we had met with the environmental NGOs, and the response of the OEP, the government amendments make changes explicit in the Bill which were only implicit. We met with noble Lords to discuss this.
Amendment 135F seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the biodiversity information required for applications for planning permission and enable specific bodies providing this information to applicants to charge for it. The Government agree it is critical that developers reduce and mitigate their impacts on biodiversity. We also agree that to achieve this, robust biodiversity information should be provided with planning applications where habitats and wildlife are affected by development proposals. However, I am not convinced that we need further powers to achieve this or that we should specify precisely where and how such information needs to be sourced.
Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. As part of this framework, developers are now required to provide a baseline assessment of pre-development biodiversity value of the site using the statutory biodiversity metric published by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Natural England provides considerable guidance and support to developers and local planning authorities on the use of this metric. The biggest infrastructure developers will also be required to do so from May 2026 when BNG is extended to nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that answer by the noble Baroness, but she did not go as far as I hoped on my first amendment. I know that there is a lot of information being gathered as a result of the biodiversity net gain process. I am comforted that the noble Baroness appears to assume this will continue, because it has been a matter of doubt, given the recent consultation. But the problem is not that it is not generated; it is generated, but then nothing happens to it. It is locked up within that particular planning application; it never gets into the national records.
What I would really like to see coming through as planning policy is that where this information is generated, it must find its way into the national database because otherwise we lose it—it is inaccessible. We do not know what was found. We cannot draw on this information to take other decisions; we are depriving ourselves. Having generated this information and people having paid for this information, it then just disappears. That cannot be the right way of doing things. We must have a planning system which contributes to the national understanding of our biodiversity. The information that we gather as part of planning surely must become part of the national biodiversity database. That is something I would really like to pursue with the noble Baroness, if she will allow me to write to her further.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and, indeed, all noble Lords for speaking. I do not want to get into the whole Part 3 debate; we will be debating that next week. I say to my noble friend Lord Fuller that this is based on evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee on 30 June of this year by the chief executive, Marian Spain, rather than the chairman, Tony Juniper, over a year ago. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for giving me confidence—it was in the right place, after all—and for providing the clarity. The key point right now is that what the Minister has said tonight contradicts what the chief executive—the accounting officer—of Natural England told Members of Parliament about the effect of the Bill. I am going to read more carefully tomorrow what the Minister has said: I am not suggesting in any way that she is misleading the House either, but I think there is a problem. Putting this amendment in has got the outcome that I would like to see but perhaps not that of the Government. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“Meetings of local planning authorities to be available for participation online(1) This section applies to any meeting of a local authority held to discharge the authority’s planning functions, including a committee or a sub-committee of the authority held under section 101(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 (a “planning meeting”).(2) A local authority must make arrangements for the proceedings of a planning meeting to be available over the internet both in real time and for five years after the meeting, and those arrangements must include the ability for members of the public observing a planning meeting over the internet in real time to address the meeting where permitted by the person chairing the meeting.(3) Subsection (2) applies despite any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing a planning meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.(4) A local authority may make standing orders and any other rules governing participation by a member of the public in a planning meeting over the internet, which may include provision for access to documents.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 135E—in another streamlined contribution—which is self-explanatory. I also speak to Amendment 135HZA in the name of noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who is sadly not in her place due to the hour; we believe it definitely has some merit.
The emphasis for this amendment comes very strongly from our commitment on these Benches to community engagement and, more importantly, from the fact that the community has never before been so apparently disengaged from the need to build houses and engaged instead in full blown opposition.
The pandemic changed everything, including how we did meetings. The one positive thing that is said is that remote council meetings increased the opportunities for planning committees to hear views from a far more diverse group of participants, because they were more accessible to a wider audience.
Several paragraphs have been chopped here. My amendment simply states that the Government would require local planning authorities to make their meetings available for observation and participation online—that latter word is key. It does allow for a degree of local authority autonomy in the way that it decides to allow such participation in meetings. It is not the intention of the amendment to be prescriptive, nor to favour one particular means over another. The purpose of the amendment is that meetings have to be recorded and should be kept for posterity. They could be used in appeals or public inquiries and are genuinely an accurate record of what was actually said.
The public being able to contribute is the key thing, and I believe that, unless this is mandatory, those councils that are not doing this will not choose to do so without compulsion. There are still a number of councils, around 15%, that do not even record their meetings, but, for the 85% that do, they are not always webcast in a way that people can participate in. It should also be said that many councils recognise a range of benefits from providing online availability for questions at meetings, so we must ask ourselves why these other councils are dragging their heels. Surely, giving more means to the public to participate, in a much less formal way than giving a five-minute presentation at the beginning of what can be, for many, a daunting meeting—which is what is afforded at most planning meetings that I have experienced—has got to be a benefit and make communities feel that their voice is being heard. It should be something we want all councils to do.
We know that there is plenty of research, particularly that done by the RTPI, that shows that digital transformation can help various groups, the young in particular. Half the people in the RTPI’s most recent survey said that being able to respond digitally would make them more likely to get involved in the system—and maybe we might then get some yimbys joining in the housing debate.
The Greater London Authority and the Local Government Association have been pioneering this. There are lots of good examples and good practice that we can learn from. This would particularly help people living in rural areas, who may have a long journey to get to meetings or be disadvantaged by poor public transport. It would better accommodate the needs of those with work or caring responsibilities, and people with personal or protected characteristics who may find online attendance or viewing much more accessible than turning up to the fairly stiff formal council meeting. That is why we believe this clause should be mandatory across all authorities.
The situation with regard to the public and planning has never been worse. Anything we can do to improve that has got to be tried, but we fear some local authorities will need the final push of mandatory provision to make it happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene, not least on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She is not here to speak to her amendment but, as a number of noble Lords will recall, she and I worked together during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill on amendments to the same effect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will recall that she led an amendment for this purpose, all to the effect of bringing us firmly into the post-pandemic, 21st-century manner of holding meetings, enabling local authorities to hold virtual meetings. There are many reasons for that, which I will not rehearse.
I remind noble Lords, and especially the limited number of us who were here for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, that we went into ping-pong on this issue on the basis of the amendment at the time from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It was sent back to the other place on a second occasion with a narrow majority in this House, which included the Minister responding to this debate. The then Opposition committed themselves in principle to virtual meetings. I hope they will see that through now.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a brief comment. I very much sympathise with the thrust of this amendment, but I am anxious about the term “members of the public”. Those noble Lords who sit on a planning committee will know that there are decision-makers—the councillors who sit around the table—who will ultimately pass judgment one way or the other on the application. As I understand it, the amendment would contemplate that those decision-makers would be in the room and then members of the public outside, watching remotely, might contribute.
Is it the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that special participants, who are not members of the public but also are not decision-makers, will be able to contribute from outside the room? The people I have in mind are local members, for example, local parish council members, or the local neighbourhood group, who have special status in the sense that they are consultees. While I can see that the decision-makers need to be in the room and members of the public might be outside, perhaps the noble Baroness could help us by saying what would be the status of these special people—the local member and so forth—who may be members of the council but not decision-makers.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I do not think that it is for us to decide about these special stakeholders. I would have thought it would be up to the council to decide whether they are allowed in the room. In my council, they are certainly encouraged to attend. The key issue is the involvement of people who would not dream of turning up to a council meeting. Of course, the local member and all the other people the noble Lord mentioned would not fear going into a council meeting and could get there easily enough. It is those who are normally excluded who are the issue. I genuinely believe that, by expanding the voice of people who contribute, we may take some of the heat out of these really controversial planning decisions.
Lord Fuller (Con)
At the moment, some of these special stakeholders are not permitted to participate unless they are in the room. I take the noble Baroness’s amendment to say that they might be able to participate if they are outside the room. That is what I was trying to probe.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
It would certainly put more pressure on the council to allow that, which I think they should.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness talked about people who would not dream of participating. It is also worth stressing that certain people would not be able to participate because of disabilities, caring responsibilities and other reasons. In fact, given the responsibilities the Government have in terms of protected characteristics, surely that would make the argument for this amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, ensuring that planning meetings can be held when they are needed and that they are accessible is of real importance. Equally, the clarity of outcome is critical, and the transparency. Applicants, the public and those participating need to see that proposals have been properly considered with clarity of decision-making, otherwise confidence in the system will be undermined. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration has been given to how these provisions will operate in practice. Linked to this issue, what safeguards can the Government provide to ensure that the decisions reached in local planning meetings are both transparent and understood by all? I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House on these points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady McIntosh, for the amendments relating to planning authority meetings. Amendment 135E would require councils to stream their planning meetings online, to publish records of those meetings and to allow members of the public to speak at them via online participation.
I have to say “well remembered” to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the levelling-up Bill—I think all of us who worked on that Bill deserve a badge to say that we survived. I indeed supported this issue, and the Government are committed to legislating to allow councils to meet remotely in response to our consultation. We are working with sector representatives such as the Local Government Association and others to clarify how this would work in practice, including how to ensure that existing rules around meetings are applied appropriately to remote and hybrid meetings without undermining democratic accountability or procedural integrity. We want to get this right and that might mean taking a little longer to work through the detail of the proposal to make sure that the changes are legally robust, practically workable and aligned with the expectation of both local authorities and the public.
We are committed to ending this micromanagement of local councils from Whitehall. Decisions about how councils run their day-to-day affairs should be taken locally. We do not think it is appropriate at the moment to make streaming meetings compulsory, as this amendment proposes. Councils can already stream their meetings online and can, if they wish, make arrangements to hear representations from the public online. Indeed, many councils already do this. The Government encourage councils to consider how they can make local democracy accessible to their residents, and that includes for reasons of disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out. Streaming meetings may be a helpful step to make local decision-making more transparent. However, making that a locally operational decision and not because of a diktat is important.
Amendment 135HZA would allow planning committees and subcommittees to meet remotely or in hybrid form in circumstances to be specified in regulations. Outdated legislation has the implied effect of requiring all local authorities to hold their meetings in one physical location only. This was confirmed by a court case several years ago. As I mentioned earlier, all local authorities are independent bodies with their own democratic mandate, and as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised several times in this House in recent years, they should be able to decide how they want to organise their own meetings and Parliament should not stand in their way. That is why the Government have committed to allowing councils to make decisions themselves about whether to hold their meetings in person, to do them fully online, or to have a hybrid form.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Have the Government looked at any legal opinion as to whether a planning meeting is different from any other council meeting because it is quasi-judicial?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is exactly the detailed work that we are doing now with the Local Government Association and with other advisers to make sure that we get all the regulations right so that we do not breach any legal duty that councils have as we go through this process. We think this choice should apply to all council meetings and not just planning committees or planning authorities. We do not think there should be conditions attached to the decision. We trust that local authorities will make arrangements that work for them and for their residents, but we need to carry out the further work that I have referred to in order to bring this forward. However, I am very committed to moving it onwards, but we do not believe that the amendments are necessary and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 135E.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was quite positive about the Minister’s response because I feel that if the work that she outlined is happening, and I understand why she said it may take a little longer, I think that will give good councils—which are a little bit fearful of doing this, but need that extra guidance—confidence to go ahead and give it a try. However, we all know that there is a group of councils which, let us just say, give rise to concern within the department for not completing their local plans. We know there are issues in council meetings that are reported every week in the planning newsletter that comes out. I think they will be allowed to drag their heels and will continue to cause concern.
I also had a wry smile when the Minister said that the Government did not want to give diktats, because they are certainly not averse to giving them in other areas. I thank the Minister for her positivity on the subject and let us hope that more and more councils do start to do this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.